Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[Ernie S.]

Lincoln began the death of slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Radical Republicans happily began the process of the 13th Amendment.
.

Comrade Starkiev, you are as per usual, confused..

Silly comment by a silly libertarian. Since some above have revealed how abysmally ignorant they are about the history of slavery in North America, they can begin here.

I encourage all to no longer to their silly statements until (1) they get serious about the subject and (2) their posts indicate at least a basic understanding.

Slavery in America Video ? History.com

Your diatribes might be better received if you were, at least coherent. Please step away from the vodka.

 

[National Socialist]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Actually libertarians defended the right of states to determine their own destiny....they chose to be a confederacy of states....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well pointed out, cap.

 

[Contumacious]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty..

You should have been around to consult the secessionist leaders, Conty. They, and only they, brought the great and terrible war on America. They, and only they, are responsible for the great suffering and death engendered by the war, Conty. And, yes, the leaders in the South subjugated blacks through the immoral although legal force of state for a 100 years after the war.

To take any other positions makes Reason stare. Conty, you make Reason go cross-eyed rather than color-blind.

 

[Contumacious]

[You should have been around to consult the secessionist leaders, Conty. .

I understand that for some reson you want to believe that Lincoln's primary motives for opposing secession in 1861 was his distaste for slavery.

Precisely the opposite was the case.

It is well known that, in an effort to promote compromise, a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that forever forbade interference with slavery in states where it already existed. Lincoln referred to the proposal, the Corwin Amendment, in his First Inaugural, stating that he was not opposed to the amendment, since it merely made explicit the existing constitutional arrangement regarding slavery. Of course, Lincoln was here characteristically mendacious; nothing in the constitution prior to the amendment prohibited amendments to end slavery.[1]"

.

 

[National Socialist]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty..

You should have been around to consult the secessionist leaders, Conty. They, and only they, brought the great and terrible war on America. They, and only they, are responsible for the great suffering and death engendered by the war, Conty. And, yes, the leaders in the South subjugated blacks through the immoral although legal force of state for a 100 years after the war.

To take any other positions makes Reason stare. Conty, you make Reason go cross-eyed rather than color-blind.

Actually no. Lincoln is the one that called up volunteers to go to war..the CSA was merely defending its self against tyranny.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty..

You should have been around to consult the secessionist leaders, Conty. They, and only they, brought the great and terrible war on America. They, and only they, are responsible for the great suffering and death engendered by the war, Conty. And, yes, the leaders in the South subjugated blacks through the immoral although legal force of state for a 100 years after the war.

To take any other positions makes Reason stare. Conty, you make Reason go cross-eyed rather than color-blind.

Actually no. Lincoln is the one that called up volunteers to go to war..the CSA was merely defending its self against tyranny.

Ya cause 83 men in an antiquated fort with no means to fire on the State was an attempt at Tyranny. The South started the war. Until South Carolina fired on that fort Lincoln did nothing. Further those States had no legal right to leave the Union. AND almost everyone of them cited SLAVERY as the reason they left.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is silent on the issue, but the Federalist Papers, mostly written by Madison, "The Father of the Constitutuion" state very clearly that the whole purpose of the Constitutution is "UNION". At the time these papers were written there was a political movement for three seperate unions, New England, Mid Atlantic, and South. The framers were definately opposed to that.

That's meaningless blather. The fact that you desire to form a union isn't proof that you intend to never allow anyone to leave it.

Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President.

Jefferson with his ally James Madison, the author of the United States Constitution and co-leader of the Republican Party developed their party's strategy. Jefferson drafted resolutions boldly claiming the constitutional authority of the individual states to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts not only unconstitutional but null and void.

In his original draft of what became the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson began with the unexpected proposition that the states in the union were not obligated to give blind obeisance to the federal government. He followed that initial statement with the critical constitutional premise that the union was a compact among the individual states.

Under the compact, the federal government was assigned certain explicit powers; all other government authority necessarily remained with the states. Because the constitution was derived from the compact among the states, Jefferson concluded that each state retained the right to judge for itself whether an act of Congress was unconstitutional. When an act of Congress was unconstitutional, as Jefferson believed the Alien and Sedition Acts were, redress was left for the states.

South Carolina had been trying to suceed from the union since the early 1800's. Their biggest effort (other than the civil war) was during Jackson's presidency, whereby they passed a resolution which would have nullified certain federal tarriffs, (which was the only revenue source that the Feds had in those days). Jackson, not being a timid man, sent word that he had no problem occupying the state with federal troops if necessary. South Carolina backed off. Jackson's VP, Calhoun, resigned, and got elected as a senator so that he could lead this battle for SC.

At the end of his life, someone asked Jackson if he had any regrets over his presidency. he replied. "I regret that I did not hang Calhoun".

It's interesting to note that you admire a jack-booted thug who likes to hang people. Jackson also gave the Supreme Court the middle finger when it told him he wasn't allowed to evict the Cherokee Indians from their land. Nice guy.

By the way, South Carolina didn't "back off." Both parties arrived at a compromise. The tariff was substantially reduced. Furthermore, South Carolina isn't the only state that threatened to secede. Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts all threatened to secede when Jefferson was president, and no one ever claimed they were traitors or instigating a rebellion.

Like all Yankee carpet baggers, you read history with blinders on. You read only the stuff that confirms your prejudices and ignore everything else.

 

[bripat9643]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty..

You should have been around to consult the secessionist leaders, Conty. They, and only they, brought the great and terrible war on America. They, and only they, are responsible for the great suffering and death engendered by the war, Conty. And, yes, the leaders in the South subjugated blacks through the immoral although legal force of state for a 100 years after the war.

To take any other positions makes Reason stare. Conty, you make Reason go cross-eyed rather than color-blind.

Lincoln is responsible, jackass. He invaded Virginia. He's the one who commenced the hostilities.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution is silent on the issue, but the Federalist Papers, mostly written by Madison, "The Father of the Constitutuion" state very clearly that the whole purpose of the Constitutution is "UNION". At the time these papers were written there was a political movement for three seperate unions, New England, Mid Atlantic, and South. The framers were definately opposed to that.

South Carolina had been trying to suceed from the union since the early 1800's. Their biggest effort (other than the civil war) was during Jackson's presidency, whereby they passed a resolution which would have nullified certain federal tarriffs, (which was the only revenue source that the Feds had in those days). Jackson, not being a timid man, sent word that he had no problem occupying the state with federal troops if necessary. South Carolina backed off. Jackson's VP, Calhoun, resigned, and got elected as a senator so that he could lead this battle for SC.

At the end of his life, someone asked Jackson if he had any regrets over his presidency. he replied. "I regret that I did not hang Calhoun".

It's interesting to note that you admire a jack-booted thug who likes to hang people. Jackson also gave the Supreme Court when it told him he wasn't allowed to evict the Cherokee Indians from their land. Nice buy.

By the way, South Carolina didn't "back off." Both parties arrived at a compromise. The tariff was substantially reduced. Furthermore, South Carolina isn't the only state that threatened to secede. Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts all threatened to secede when Jefferson was president, and no one ever claimed the were traitors or instigating a rebellion.

Like all Yankee carpet baggers, you read history with blinders on. You read only the stuff that confirms your prejudices and ignore everything else.

Meanwhile you claim, even though every State that left listed as their re4ason slavery, that they left for other reasons. You claim that slavery was almost extinct even though for 100 years after the Civil War the Southern States enslaved blacks in other means. Go figure.

 

[onecut39]

This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.​

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.

When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.

No brainer!

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is silent on the issue, but the Federalist Papers, mostly written by Madison, "The Father of the Constitutuion" state very clearly that the whole purpose of the Constitutution is "UNION". At the time these papers were written there was a political movement for three seperate unions, New England, Mid Atlantic, and South. The framers were definately opposed to that.

South Carolina had been trying to suceed from the union since the early 1800's. Their biggest effort (other than the civil war) was during Jackson's presidency, whereby they passed a resolution which would have nullified certain federal tarriffs, (which was the only revenue source that the Feds had in those days). Jackson, not being a timid man, sent word that he had no problem occupying the state with federal troops if necessary. South Carolina backed off. Jackson's VP, Calhoun, resigned, and got elected as a senator so that he could lead this battle for SC.

At the end of his life, someone asked Jackson if he had any regrets over his presidency. he replied. "I regret that I did not hang Calhoun".

It's interesting to note that you admire a jack-booted thug who likes to hang people. Jackson also gave the Supreme Court when it told him he wasn't allowed to evict the Cherokee Indians from their land. Nice buy.

By the way, South Carolina didn't "back off." Both parties arrived at a compromise. The tariff was substantially reduced. Furthermore, South Carolina isn't the only state that threatened to secede. Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts all threatened to secede when Jefferson was president, and no one ever claimed the were traitors or instigating a rebellion.

Like all Yankee carpet baggers, you read history with blinders on. You read only the stuff that confirms your prejudices and ignore everything else.

Meanwhile you claim, even though every State that left listed as their re4ason slavery, that they left for other reasons. You claim that slavery was almost extinct even though for 100 years after the Civil War the Southern States enslaved blacks in other means. Go figure.

Hmmmm . . . . no, I never claimed that. What I did claim is that slavery ended in every other country either before the Civil War or shortly after it without shedding the blood of 850,000 people. Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery. They ended it in 1888, 19 years after it was abolished in the United States.

Slavery probably would have ended short after the Southern States seceded since the Federal government would have no longer been required to enforce the fugitive slave act and slaves would have escaped en mass to free territory.

Yeah, murdering 850,000 people was a good solution to the problem of slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.​

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.

When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.

No brainer!

Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty..

You should have been around to consult the secessionist leaders, Conty. They, and only they, brought the great and terrible war on America. They, and only they, are responsible for the great suffering and death engendered by the war, Conty. And, yes, the leaders in the South subjugated blacks through the immoral although legal force of state for a 100 years after the war.

To take any other positions makes Reason stare. Conty, you make Reason go cross-eyed rather than color-blind.

Lincoln is responsible, jackass. He invaded Virginia. He's the one who commenced the hostilities.

The very nice thing is that I when nonsense like yours is read young and educated Americans break into gales of laughter and remark, "Who thought the KKK was still around and kicking. We will finish that nonsense right quick."

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.​

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.

When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.

No brainer!

Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.

Links for secession. You won't find it.

 

[bripat9643]

The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.

When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.

No brainer!

Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.

Links for secession. You won't find it.

I've already posted dozens of quotes on the subject, moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just as soon as you explain:

1- The reason Lincoln admitted to the New York Tribune Newspaper that abolishing slavery was NOT the purpose of the Northern aggression

2- The reason he chose Johnson as his Vice president when he was a slave owner in Tennessee;

.

I don't have to. Every state that cited slavery as a reason for secession proves you wrong.

Excuse me Dingleberry, but at the time the Constitution was signed it was understood that some states allowed slavery.

It would like you beating your wife after 20 years of marriage because that mole on her nose suddenly bothers you.

.

You're claiming the states didn't secede because of slavery. That is simply wrong. Not only is it wrong, but there is no point in being wrong.

Slavery was the number one domestic issue in the United States since before there were a United States. Even the Declaration of Independence was edited from its original form because certain states objected to Jefferson's mention of slavery in a derogatory manner.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.

Links for secession. You won't find it.

I've already posted dozens of quotes on the subject, moron.

Madison did not support secession.

However, TJ did write that to William B. Giles in Dec. 26, 1825, that secession was only acceptable "when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.” The South faced even remotely neither of those situations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.​

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.

When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.

No brainer!

Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.

I've already quoted Madison verbatim in opposition to secession. One more reminder to all here that bripat doesn't even read anyone else's posts.