They're walking out, repudiating any responsibility for debt or other national responsibilities, taking every piece of federal property they could get their hands on, and all the remaining states were expected to sit back and take it. Where is their protections? Doesn't the Constitution provide them with any rights?
Your whole premise that those leaving somehow screw over those staying is wrong.
On the contrary.
Well, the document itself is still perfectly legible. Why don't you read it and tell us what it says about this specific issue. While your working on that, I'd like to issue a general challenge to your whole latitude: If a formerly unknown part of the constitution were suddenly discovered, perhaps something written in disappearing/reappearing ink, or something written on the back of a page which, hilariously, had never been turned over before, which specifically stipulated that on a certain date the US military was to used to used to wage war on the civilians of a certain part of the country and that every atrocity of war was to be employed, would you just "follow orders"?
I'll call this my first argumentative challenge.
They're not repudiating any responsibility for debt. The only federal property they are taking is that which is within their own territory.....their taxes paid to build federal installations too. It seems like a fair trade. The other states have no claim on them - they are sovereign. The citizens of other states "protections" lay in the sovereignty of their own state.>/p> On the contrary.
Yes, its wrong. Those staying have no claim on those who are leaving. One spouse cannot force another to stay in a relationship they no longer wish to be a part of. Your employer cannot force you to continue to work for them. Self determination is the most basic of rights we all have.
You leave out that for decades they paid 75% of all taxes even though they were only 1/4-1/5th of the population. They paid for every bit of what they got, and in fact the Union still owed them a lot more to make it even.