Pot=kettle
As usual you’re too dimwitted to see the bigger picture. Of course the Constitution is silent on secession: it does not enumerate nor does it prohibit secession. Lincoln himself held that he was powerless to stop the states from seceding. He hoped that cooler heads and the rebel’s “better angels” would weigh in and stop the madness. Unfortunately there were none to be had.
What Lincoln did have was specific authority to defend the United States against acts of sedition, insurrection, and war. He did use those powers against the Slaver’s Rebellion - quite successfully I might add.
Not at all. You're the ignorant one and its not even close.
rockrr:As usual you’re too dimwitted to see the bigger picture. Of course the Constitution is silent on secession: it does not enumerate nor does it prohibit secession. Lincoln himself held that he was powerless to stop the states from seceding. He hoped that cooler heads and the rebel’s “better angels” would weigh in and stop the madness. Unfortunately there were none to be had. What Lincoln did have was specific authority to defend the United States against acts of sedition, insurrection, and war. He did use those powers against the Slaver’s Rebellion - quite successfully I might add.
Again, you have it exactly backwards in your understanding dimwit. If the constitution is silent on it - which we both know it is - then it is a power retained by the states. Several states expressly reserved this power at the time of ratification and nobody said this in any way violated or was inconsistent with the constitution or that their ratifications of the constitution were thereby defective. Every state understood itself to have that right. What Lincoln did was deliberately start a war without Congressional authority to impose US sovereignty over foreign powers - ie the sovereign states which had seceded. He also violated the constitution he swore to uphold many more times in the course of the bloodbath he initiated for money.