I am enough of a mental giant, I have a 141 IQ, I doubt that you even come close. Here’s the deal, the same creator that bestowed the other rights mentioned in the constitution upon mankind, bestowed the right to govern ourselves upon us. The constitution even mentions the fact that we that right. That means we have the right to secede from the Union and have always had that right. When we judge that the people governing us have slipped past the point of self governance by, of and for the people then we have the right to secede from that Union and form another type of government. As I said before, if you don’t understand that then you do indeed have sh** for brains, whether you like it or not.
Dude, you're going to have to show me where it says that in the Constitution.
You're probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is fine, but did the Founders really want us to be bailing out on elected governments whenever things didn't go our way? Or were they thinking that the right of revolution could only be exercised when other channels of action had failed?
That means we have the right to secede from the Union and have always had that right. When we judge that the people governing us have slipped past the point of self governance by, of and for the people then we have the right to secede from that Union and form another type of government.
Show me where it says that in the Constitution. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to form a new government, just that you have to go through channels first if the government is at all representative and republican.
If the government respects basic constitutional rights, and is responsive to the majority as expressed in elections, you don't just get to walk away and take over federal property. If the government is really tyrannical, you have that right of revolution, but that wasn't the case in 1860 (or even today).
As I said before, if you don’t understand that then you do indeed have sh** for brains, whether you like it or not.
I have been listening to arguments about this for years now. There is disagreement now. There was more disagreement 150 years ago. Obviously, then, there are things that intelligent people can disagree about, and that was even more true in 1860.
Even James Buchanan believed that unilateral secession was unconditional (thought he didn't believe the federal government could stop it). Other experts agreed that secession violated the Constitution. Or you can go back to the warnings of Webster and Clay a decade before: there was a widespread conviction that secession would mean civil war.
I've been telling people that the CSA (the government) wasn't just like us -- it wasn't just a bunch of guys who liked to complain about government after work. It was (or aspired to be) a government itself. It was politicians who had power and wanted more. It was slaveowners who wanted guaranteed freedoms for slaveowners.
But come to think of it, the CSA (the government) was a lot like you. They made up their mind that they were right and that there were no legitimate counter-arguments. Jefferson Davis believed that nobody in their right mind could disagree with him. Fire-eaters, like Toombs, Yancey, and Wigfall -- believed that nobody would dare resist them, or if anyone did, they'd be easily overcome. How did that work out for them?