[arrogantsob]

Our Founders thoughts of what the Union is is extremely important since they came from the principle instigators of the CC and the Constitution itself.

The Federalist Papers had no legal significance, either. They provided the basis for understanding the document. John Marshall said that when he approached any case the first thing he did was consult the Federalist to see how to think about it.

These essays (the greatest political thought of their and our day) were written by a couple of random guys named James Madison and Alexander Hamilton with a couple by John Jay. Hamilton wrote two thirds of them. George Washington believed the same thing about secession and explicitly warned about it.

There are plenty of implicit supports for an indissoluble, perpetual union. The Articles stated that clearly and its’ child, the Constitution made that indissoluble Union even more perfect.

You can’t even get a divorce without legal sanction (unless you live in a Islamic state), how much more necessary is it to dissolve a perpetual Union?

[DiogenesLamp]

How ever did we get free of England then? Last I heard, it was a “perpetual union” too, and having lasted a thousand years longer than the US.

[Svartalfiar]

There are plenty of implicit supports for an indissoluble, perpetual union. The Articles stated that clearly and its’ child, the Constitution made that indissoluble Union even more perfect.

And yet somehow, the Constitution did not make that explicit. When we have the obvious parent example to do so, that all the Founding Fathers were working off of.

Our Founders thoughts of what the Union is is extremely important since they came from the principle instigators of the CC and the Constitution itself.

Yes of course. You can't have original meaning without those supporting texts. All I'm saying is that you can't claim secession is impossible only based off of a single letter from one person. What other correspondence is there (for or against) to give more perspective on it? And, like above, why remove an explicit statement of indissolubiluty if they still meant for it?