Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Syriusly]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

The Southern states even after being returned to the US maintained a form of apartheid for 100 years.

That wouldn't have anything to do with being invaded by foreign armies that proceeded to rape, pillage and loot and burn their cities to the ground, do you suppose?

What- do you think that Southerners were so angry at how they were treated by the North, that they decided to take out their anger on their former slaves?

Well that justifies it all.....

 

[Syriusly]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

Tell us how England was an apartheid state just like South Africa- I wasn't aware of that- and would like to know.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really an American thing.

More like an African Tribal thing.

More like an Arab-Berber-Muslim Slaver thing.

More like a Spanish and Portugese and English thing.

Americans were pikers and johnny-come-latelies compared to those guys.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Denying our past is exactly what brainwashed turds like you do.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union

Not denying our past doesn't mean adopting your moronic conclusions. Every Western country in the world ended slavery by 1889. The idea that the American confederacy would be the lone exception that lasted into the 20th century is too stupid for words to describe.

That you presume to know how history would turn out just shows your ignorant arrogance.

The United States was already among the last few countries in the Western Hemisphere to have legal slavery when the Confederate States seceded specifically to protect slavery.

Mexico abolished slavery in 1821
Peru- 1854
Chile- 1825
Venezuala- 1854

The only Western Hemisphere countries other than the United States where slavery was still legal in 1860 were Cuba- and Brazil. Why do you think that the South would have chosen to give up the slavery that it left the United States to protect?

So what year do you say the South would have voluntarily liberated its slaves- and given up the South's single largest capital investment?

You and your thread cronies have been saying that slavery would have continued, but I'm the one who presumes to know how history would turn out?

Your chutzpah is unbelievable.

There were actually many people in the South who wanted to end slavery but they were afraid because they saw what happened in Haiti where freed black slaves went on a rampage and slaughtered all the whites on the Island. That's why Haiti is 100% black to this very day.

Slavery would have been much more difficult to maintain in the Confederacy since Union states would have no longer had to enforce the fugitive slave act. Slaves would have escaped to the North in increasing numbers until it was virtually impossible to maintain slavery in the border states. Once they eliminated slavery, then it would only be a matter of time until it disappeared in the rest of the country.

 

[-S-]

Don't make claims you can't substantiate.

Exactly, so where is your quote from bripat that he supports slavery?

And you substantiated my claim.

I said you are equating support for secession and support of slavery. You agreed you are, but only claimed you are doing it for bripat because he said that. Why exactly are you asking me to substantiate what you already agreed to?

So follow your own statement and substantiate where bripat said he supports slavery. Every reference I read said he doesn't

You must be joking..

Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

The "we" (which you took the time to capitalize, that isn't my doing) shows that you think that I am equating those two stances as the same thing (which isn't true, and you don't have a post to prove it), and furthermore you say I am accusing multiple people, including yourself of feeling that way. That is your claim and it simply isn't true. Reading comprehension, dear Kaz..


As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

You can read it all yourself in the "Why Gay Marriage is Wrong!" thread.




Regardless of whether you say my claim was wrong because Bripat didn't blatantly say he supported the right to own slaves (except he did..), Your claim of:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

is complete bullshit, because the only person I even said may be a slavery apologist is Bripat, and I never said that if one believes in the right to secession, one also believes in slavery. Furthermore, you accused me of claiming yourself and multiple others were slavery apologists (WE), and that is simply untrue and UNSUBSTANTIATED.



Also, your childish "Well, you didn't substantiate your claim yet, why should I?" crap was pretty bitchy.

Your claim was against me. You called ME out. THAT was our discourse.
My claim was against Bripat. You stuck your nose in his fight to hide from your own battle.
No one likes a bitch. Next time just surrender if you're at a loss for words.

 

[bripat9643]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

Tell us how England was an apartheid state just like South Africa- I wasn't aware of that- and would like to know.

That was sarcasm, numskull. South Africa is the only apartheid state that has ever existed, and it never practiced slavery. There is not one shred of evidence that slavery devolves into apartheid.

 

[Syriusly]

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Denying our past is exactly what brainwashed turds like you do.

No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union

Not denying our past doesn't mean adopting your moronic conclusions. Every Western country in the world ended slavery by 1889. The idea that the American confederacy would be the lone exception that lasted into the 20th century is too stupid for words to describe.

That you presume to know how history would turn out just shows your ignorant arrogance.

The United States was already among the last few countries in the Western Hemisphere to have legal slavery when the Confederate States seceded specifically to protect slavery.

Mexico abolished slavery in 1821
Peru- 1854
Chile- 1825
Venezuala- 1854

The only Western Hemisphere countries other than the United States where slavery was still legal in 1860 were Cuba- and Brazil. Why do you think that the South would have chosen to give up the slavery that it left the United States to protect?

So what year do you say the South would have voluntarily liberated its slaves- and given up the South's single largest capital investment?

You and your thread cronies have been saying that slavery would have continued, but I'm the one who presumes to know how history would turn out?

Your chutzpah is unbelievable.
.

hat you presume to know how history would turn out just shows your ignorant arrogance.

The United States was already among the last few countries in the Western Hemisphere to have legal slavery when the Confederate States seceded specifically to protect slavery.

Mexico abolished slavery in 1821
Peru- 1854
Chile- 1825
Venezuala- 1854

The only Western Hemisphere countries other than the United States where slavery was still legal in 1860 were Cuba- and Brazil. Why do you think that the South would have chosen to give up the slavery that it left the United States to protect?

So what year do you say the South would have voluntarily liberated its slaves- and given up the South's single largest capital investment?

 

[Syriusly]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

Tell us how England was an apartheid state just like South Africa- I wasn't aware of that- and would like to know.

That was sarcasm, numskull. South Africa is the only apartheid state that has ever existed, and it never practiced slavery. There is not one shred of evidence that slavery devolves into apartheid.

oh so you were just lying and I caught you on it- gotcha.

 

[bripat9643]

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

You mean like every other nation that practiced slavery?

Another idiot posts his moron theories to the forum.

Tell us how England was an apartheid state just like South Africa- I wasn't aware of that- and would like to know.

That was sarcasm, numskull. South Africa is the only apartheid state that has ever existed, and it never practiced slavery. There is not one shred of evidence that slavery devolves into apartheid.

oh so you were just lying and I caught you on it- gotcha.

You misinterpreted what I posted, numskull.

 

[rightwinger]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

 

[OKTexas]

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

 

[rightwinger]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

There was no automated way to pick cotton until the 1930s. They would have maintained a way to keep a low cost labor force.

 

[-S-]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

That's pretty much all he ever does.
Don't ever expect him to substantiate anything he says. Just laugh and move on.

 

[rightwinger]

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

 

[Correll]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

A sovereign southern nation would have retained slavery for a time and then probably have gone to an apartheid type state like South Africa.

There was no automated way to pick cotton until the 1930s. They would have maintained a way to keep a low cost labor force.

The Boll Weevil would have devastated the Planter Class which were the ones who primarily benefited from slavery. I think that, increasing pressure from their trade partners, and the passing of the generation that fought the war, would have led to the elimination of slavery well before that, IMO.

 

[paperview]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

 

[bripat9643]

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

I already proved it's not a contract, fool.

The supreme court is an arm of the government. Allowing that arrangement to resolve disputes between the government and the people would be like having a game between the Patriots and the Seahawks and having the Patriot's coaching staff do all the officiating for the game.

No one has a problem when things go their way, especially not the government, and things almost always go its way.

 

[kaz]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

 

[Correll]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

 

[hipeter924]

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

The historical revisionists want moar slaves, as apparently the illegals they get in from Mexico aren't enough.

 

[bripat9643]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.