Are you quoting Stephens the 'statesman,' or Stephens the 'vile traitor?' If he was the former, then why would he support the Confederacy? If the latter, then why do you bother to quote him?
And in any case, why should we grant his words greater authority than those of the Constitution, which nowhere prohibits secession?
"LOL."
;>)
I was quoting and agreeing with Alexander Stephens, the southern politician who correctly saw unilateral "secession" to be nothing more than an idiotic attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. I cannot account for your attempt to associate Stephens with the terms "statesman" and/or "vile traitor."
If he was the former, then why would he support the Confederacy? If the latter, then why do you bother to quote him?
Like I said, those descriptive terms are yours or, at the least, not mine. And although I agree with Stephens that it was utter madness for Georgia to attempt to unilaterally "secede" from the Union, I'm not critical of his decision to remain in Georgia and attempt to make the best of a disastrous situation. Home is home.
And in any case, why should we grant his words greater authority than those of the Constitution, which nowhere prohibits secession?
We shouldn't. Unilateral "secession" was not made more unconstitutional because of anything he said. I quoted him because his words reflected sound political judgment.