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.
Actually, both you and Mr. Stephens are incorrect: ‘secession’ and ‘revolution’ are certainly not interchangeable terms. The former (‘secession’) describes a ‘formal withdrawal’ from an association; the latter (‘revolution’)would correctly describe an “attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.” Mr. Stephens, being deceased, can no longer obtain a dictionary to correct his misapplication of the English language. But perhaps you should do so...
... I'm not critical of his decision to remain in Georgia and attempt to make the best of a disastrous situation. Home is home.
Care to tell us where you rank “home is home” in terms of your own priorities? Does it come before or after ‘God,’ ‘family,’ and ‘country?’
Unilateral "secession" was not made more unconstitutional because of anything he said. I quoted him because his words reflected sound political judgment.
Given that the Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, it is quite true that Mr. Stephens words do not make “unilateral ‘secession’...unconstitutional.” But I must suggest that “political judgement” that contradicts the written terms of the Constitution hardly qualifies as “sound:” perhaps ‘pragmatic’ would be a more applicable term...
;>)