[4CJ]

NS, good arguments.

Before we proceed any further, I must state that the desecration of the Lincoln monument is and was a despicable act. I do not hate Lincoln, but I do despise the methods he used to accomplish his goals. The protection of monuments, historical markers and the preservation of the history and heritage of of ancestors is what we a fighting for, and I denounce anyone that resorts to such tactics on either side.

I just don't understand why anyone has a problem understanding the statement, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The powers not given to the federal government, nor denied to the states, remain with the states. There is no article that vests the right of secession to the federal government, and neither is there an article that denies the states that right. The power remains with the state.

In 1803, when writing the Marbury v. Madison decision, Chief Justice Marshall wrote,

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"

A government that refuses to recognize the rights retained by the states, and exceeds the limitations placed upon it by the state governments, a government that can ignore the Constitution, and refuse to adhere to that compact, has already broken it.

[Non-Sequitur]

But their actions were arbitrary. As I pointed out you are defending as Constiutional arbitrary actions when no where else in the document does it support any other sort of arbitrary action. The southern actions were not constitutional. Had they tried to get 19 other states to agree with them then that would have been a different matter. And in all honesty I don't think that it would have been that hard for them to do so. They would have started with a core of 7 states plus the other 4 which later joined. It's likely that the other slave owning states would have supported them which gives them 15. You must remember that prior to the south firing on Sumter the general consensus in the newspapers up north was mixed with a lot of them opposed to keeping the southern states in the Union at any cost. It is not out of the realm of possibility to believe that the south wouldn't have picked up the additional 11 states necessary to allow them to leave peacefully. All that goodwill and support evaporated, of course, when the south fired on Sumter. So by their actions the south truly was the architect of their own destruction.