Obviously. But would you care to cite the specific clause of the US Constitution that prohibited State secession?
Of course not....
;>)
Never-mind that the “oppression” that the south claimed never rose to the point of legitimate protest, there was a right way to secede and then there was the way the south went about it.
If you believe Mr. Jefferson (Kentucky Resolutions)) and Mr. Madison (Virginia Resolutions), it was up to the people of the individual States - not you - to judge whether the terms of the compact had been abided by...
They initiated the problem, they provoked a war, and then they suffered the consequences.
Actually. it might be said that the North "initiated the problem, they provoked a war," and the South "suffered the consequences."
I do wonder how things might have turned out had they gone about their secession honorably and legally.
And how would that have happened, in your enlightened opinion? Please cite the US Constitution in your reply.
I won't stay up waiting.
Yawn...
;>)
Yet the Constitution delegates power to the President as Commander-in-Chief of all of the States and he takes an oath to defend the Constitution (the law) of all of the States and to defend all United States citizens from rebellion, invasion or an attack on our Constitution.
I would say that it pretty well outlined that the President was not simply a figure head for a treaty among the States but the leader of all of its people empowered with the duty to defend the Constitution and all people of the United States.
Under your ideal though a simple majority of a state could enslave people and rebel against the Constitution without any due process at all to its people or the people of other states and wage war against the United States legally. Yet there is no portion of the Constitution that makes the actions of democrat rebels to do so legal at all. It is all just hyberbole and not backed up by the Constitution at all.