“But the Founders themselves were consistent in saying, or implying, that lawful secession should be by mutual consent or, in effect, some material breech of contract justifying dissolving the Union.”
Comrade Brojoe couldn’t be more wrong. Let’s forget Jefferson and his passion for state rights for a minute and move on to James Madison, you know, “The Father of the Constitution”. Even Federalist Madison opined that there was/is an “extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of ‘intolerable oppression’; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejected secession—as a violation of the Constitution.”
The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type. But remember, at the end of the day the north killed hundreds of thousands of Southerners in the successful attempt to deny them THEIR free will. Bottom line in Comrade’s book; slavery bad — denial of (Southern) free will and self governance good.
Thanks for the reference to Madison. It shows that he understood the difference between the natural right of rebellion and the contrived "right" of secession. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Or perhaps not:
The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type.
There was no oppression being brought upon the south - except at the hands of the southron slavers.
Are you saying that the fact that the south suffered casualties in a war they started over what they claimed to be "intolerable oppression" is proof of that oppression?
Sorry, I let you get away with a ludicrous post trying to equate your views to Madison's.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Lee'sGhost: "Even Federalist Madison opined that there was/is an 'extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of ‘intolerable oppression’; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejected secession—as a violation of the Constitution."
Madison's view is exactly my own, and yours exactly the opposite.
Lee'sGhost: "The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type."
When South Carolina first declared secession, in December 1860, there was not only no "tolerable type" oppression, there was no oppression -- none, zero, zip, nada.
So South Carolina and every other Deep South state declared secession, in Madison's term: "at pleasure", meaning not for some constitutionally justifiable reason.
Then those states immediately committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" before starting outright war by assaulting Fort Sumter, in April 1861.
On May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
But the first Confederate soldier killed directly in battle with a Union force came on June 10, 1861.
Bottom line: while the Confederacy declared secession "at pleasure" thus violating our Founders Original Intent, the Union delayed responding to the Confederacy's many acts of rebellion or war until all possibility of peace was gone.
Of course there is an extra-legal right to revolt, but that is balanced by the duty of the government to put down insurrection.
Which happened.
To successfully exercise the right to revolt you have to win.
Which didn’t happen.