D: Partially true. ..I guess if you consider Lincoln a tyrant, calling calling Washington a 'used car salesmen' is not all that bad.
No offense intended, but you seem confused. I was speculating with regard to Walt’s argument – not my own. I refer repeatedly to the comments of Mr. Madison during the ratification debates, and those of Mr. Jefferson shortly thereafter, and take them at their word. Others do not: several of those who disagree with me have taken exception to their statements, and have gone so far as to label them ‘senile’ and ‘crazy.’ Others have suggested that I am subject to arrest by federal authorities, apparently because I quote their statements. Often it can be quite amusing: Walt simply refuses to even discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the union formed under the Articles, and also refuses to discuss the ‘federal-court-approved-but-unconstitutional-as-h&ll’ Alien and Sedition Acts. (Change your mind yet, Walt? ;>)
History simply does not agree with you
Are you saying that the States, only a few short years after winning a war of secession from Britain, would independently secede from a self-described ‘perpetual union,’ only to form a new union from which secession was prohibited by some unwritten, yet irrevocable, agreement? Shall I quote State ratification documents, wherein they specifically reserve the right of secession in writing? Shall I quote the most respected legal references of the era (Tucker’s Blackstones and Rawle’s A View of the Constitution), both of which confirm the right of State secession from the constitutional union? Perhaps you will accept an independent evaluation:
”...The proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced...”
William E. Gienapp, Professor of History at Harvard University
If there is anyone here with whom “(h)istory simply does not agree,” it is not I: I would suggest that it is the person (or persons ;>) who avoid certain historical topics like vampires avoid garlic...
That is exactly what they did. An individual state could no more unilaterally remove itself from the Union without the permission of the others than the other states could expel a member state without its consent. It is the nature of the contract.
It could have been legal if they had either passed an amendment giving states a unilateral right to secede or even if the congress as a whole voted to allow a state or states to depart the same way as congress votes as a whole to admit new states. The South attempted neither and they may well have been successful if they had tried. Instead they chose open rebellion.
and those of Mr. Jefferson shortly thereafter
Jefferson had no role in writing the Constitution. And his ‘words’ tended to change considerably depending on what ax he was grinding at any give moment. He was not a model of consistency. If I read him right, he surely would not have tolerated secession during his eight years in office. When he waxed on at Montecello about the evils of slavery or whatever he may have divined such a right, but the actual framers did not. Neither Madison or Jay saw a right to secede. The writings of Hamilton and Washington strongly imply that they saw no right to do so either. These are people who sat in Philadelphia in the summer of 87 and wrote that document. They clearly viewed the Constitution as a perpetual Union. It would be foolish to think these men who understood how very difficult representative government was would spend their time devising a Union of 13 states thinking that at the first storm, or the first disappointment, those states could simply pack up and depart. These were very practical men. They would not have wasted their time writing a fragile document such as that.
If the south were being oppressed in 1860, the Founders would have supported armed rebellion. But exactly how was the south being oppressed by the Federal Government? There only grievance seemed to be that many in the North didn’t like slavery and were helping slaves escape and teaching them to read. The Federal government wasn’t helping the slaves escape or teaching them to read. Private citizens were. So the south rebelled and started a war. Where’s the justification?