Replies

Since the constitution does not place any requirements on secession they would not be required to pay any debts or return any properties.

So what you want us to believe is that the Constitution protects those who are leaving and not those who are staying. That those who are leaving can take any action they want, regardless of the impact on the remaining states, and there is nothing those states can do. They have no choice, no say in the matter, no protections afforded by the Constitution at all. The Constitution is, in effect, a club that the seceding states can use at will to batter the remaining states with. So do you really think that the Founders would have signed on to an idea like that? That the Constitutional solution is one guaranteed to foster bitterness and acrimony, and is likely to lead to war? Do you really expect us to believe that?

So what you want us to believe is that the Constitution protects those who are leaving and not those who are staying.

No what I believe personally is that, like your example about the servers secession is simply illegal, and as such the laundry list of reasons, northern aggressions, and such are superfluous to the argument.

Showing that the law is by its nature binary forces people to address the absurdity of the secession as a legal act argument. The founding fathers showed considerable insight when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They anticipated that a president might need t obe removed, and wrote criteria and procedures for doing it. They anticipated that new states would be added and wrote criteria and procedures for adding them. They recognized that the congress might pass unconstitutional laws, and wrote criteria and procedures for the supreme court to overturn them. They anticipated that the constitution would need to change and wrote criteria and procedures for amendments. Yet they wrote no criteria or procedures for secession. Therefore the only two logically sound arguments are that there are absolutely no criteria or restrictions on secession or conversely that it is illegal under all circumstances.

This is the classic argument between law and justice. If an action is legal it does not need to be justified. Simply show that the criteria are met and walk away. Since there are no criteria for secession in the constitution in order to accept its legality we must accept that anyone can leave the union at any time with no responsibilities or duties attached, and no justifications required.

In 1776 the 13 colonies rebelled. When the founding fathers rebelled they never pretended what they were doing was legal. The famous statement that we must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately, and their pledge of their lives property and sacred honor acknowledged that if they failed they expected to pay the ultimate price. A rebellion might be justified, but we should never pretend that it is legal. The fact that the pro-Confederate faction spends so much time trying to justify their actions testifies to the fact that they know darn well it wasn't legal.