I like whiskey too papa, but there comes a time when you should either lay off the internet or lay off the whiskey.
If you believe in government of the people, by the the people and for the people, then you have to believe also in the right of secession. There is simply no escaping that.
Charlie
President Lincoln has answered you:
"Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled - the successful *establishing*, and the successful *administering* of it. One still remains - its successful *maintenance* against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them [our people] to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion - that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be the great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by war - teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war."
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return?
The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?
Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
"This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existance we contend."
7/4/61
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.
Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this congress and this administration shall be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor unto the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We--even we here--hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
12/01/62
Walt
You can't summon anything from the historical record to support your position. Personal attacks must suffice.
The framers' intention was a permanent union of the states. No one started this secession blather until their property in slaves was threatened. Pull out a dollar bill. See where it says "E Pluribus Unum"? That was adopted in 1782. The concept of legal secession is a construct taken from whole cloth by the slave holders.
Walt
It is hard to imagine an intellect of self-imposed serfdom but that's what you have in the cut and paste mentality of Whiskey_Poo!
(and others on this forum who, when pressed, have admitted the same)