Perhaps you should read a little history. As I have noted previously, however, "your question is largely irrelevant. It is the language of the written Constitution that is of critical importance, not the supposed ‘competence’ [or ‘prominence’] of politicians - no matter how much you may prefer the words of politicians to the words of the Constitution..."
Or would you have us believe that the right to keep and bear arms, for example, is somehow dependent upon the 'prominence' of "politicians who worked for and advocated" that right? Hmm?
;>)
I agree that my question had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the constitutional claim that was made by the secessionists, but in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of young American men died because the issue was decided militarily, I don't know how you can possibly deem irrelevant or unimportant the political decisions that led to the issue being resolved militarily. As I have said before, I believe that competent politicians would not have abandoned all of the existing political and judicial mechanisms that existed for the peaceful resolution of the southern politicians' claim that there existed a constitutional right of secession. I don't think that competent politicians would have attempted to take it upon themselves to unilaterally resolve such an issue except for the most compelling of reasons and I don't think that competent politicians in 1860 would have viewed the eternal preservation of slavery as a compelling reason.
As you know, when we look into the history of these events, we find that many of the most prominent southern politicians (including Stephens) were opposed to "secession." If you can't think of any prominent southern politicians (other than Toombs) who favored the idea, then you've probably helped me all that you can.
Or would you have us believe that the right to keep and bear arms, for example, is somehow dependent upon the 'prominence' of "politicians who worked for and advocated" that right? Hmm?
If you have ever owned a gun, sir, I suppose you already know that the Constitution provides you with very little guidance for how to competently care for and use it. You'll find nothing in the Constitution that forbids competence or common sense.