[ned]

I think that Mr. Stephens meant exactly what he said. When the delegates to the Georgia “secession” convention voted to unilaterally “secede,” they genuinely meant to terminate the U.S. Government’s ability to exercise its constitutional powers in the state of Georgia. It is occasionally unclear to me whether you fully appreciate that facet of unilateral “secession.” They really did intend to do just that and it is in that regard that it involved an attempt to “overthrow” the government. The argument that the Constitution reserves to the states or to the people of a state or to anyone an implied constitutional right to overthrow the Federal government in any portion of the country is simply not indisputably correct. It’s really not even mildly persuasive to me. But I respect your right to have your own point of view on the constitutional issue.

Andrew Jackson suggested that the southern effort to constitutionalize the claimed right of unilateral “secession” was motivated by a desire to disguise its revolutionary character:

"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure." – Andrew Jackson (1832)

Do you think that Jackson was mistaken in that regard?

[Who is John Galt?]

I think that Mr. Stephens meant exactly what he said.

That in no way indicates that he was right. I can name any number of people who ‘meant exactly what they said,’ and who were nevertheless quite wrong.

Andrew Jackson suggested that the southern effort to constitutionalize the claimed right of unilateral “secession” was motivated by a desire to disguise its revolutionary character...Do you think that Jackson was mistaken in that regard?

Without a doubt, Mr. Jackson was “mistaken.” The Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, and the Tenth Amendment clearly documents the reservation of that right to the States and their people. And by equating ‘secession’ (the formal withdrawal from an association) with ‘revolution’ (the forcible overthrow of a government) Mr. Jackson is clearly “confounding the meaning of terms,” something which “can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right:” in this case, the right of peaceful withdrawal from a political association.

Mr. Jackson, whether he ‘erred grossly’ or attempted to ‘deceive,’ is just as dead as Mr. Stephens, and (wherever he may be) has no use for a dictionary. The same can not be said of you: please locate one, and use it.

;>)