Frume, you still pushing the "Suitors of Penelope" thesis? That once the doors swing shut, I can do to you anything I like, and call it a square deal, because you signed on the dotted line? That I can then bring in all sorts of inexplicit, secret provisions based only on a theory of my own devising, and abridge your contract rights by their imposition -- holding you to the letter of your signature, but reserving to myself (and myself alone) the right to invent, to reinterpret, to judge, and to bind? That's an interesting concept, but show me where it's supported anywhere in business law, that one party may set himself up to be the arbiter of all differences
even when the contract doesn't give him that right or authority.
Sounds to me like you Northerners have had too much fun over the years, changing the rules to suit yourselves whenever you please, and assigning all criticism to anyone who objects. You've become complacent and arrogant -- bad combination. How's your Spanish, fellas? Ready for a few other changes that you didn't think of?
You assume that it was the North which broke the constitution when it was the South trying to weasel out from underneath it (BTW, tell me just how the south could claim much of what was the Louisiana territory and at the same time disclaim any debts incurred by the Union for it).
You also assume because I assert the south was wrong in this issue that I am a northerner.
You Assume too much.
I may be as arrogant as you please (although I take issue with your assertion about "complacency"), but stupidity doesn't run on my side of the argument.