[Who is John Galt?]

I was quoting and agreeing with Alexander Stephens, the southern politician who correctly saw unilateral "secession" to be nothing more than an idiotic attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.

Actually, both you and Mr. Stephens are incorrect: ‘secession’ and ‘revolution’ are certainly not interchangeable terms. The former (‘secession’) describes a ‘formal withdrawal’ from an association; the latter (‘revolution’)would correctly describe an “attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.” Mr. Stephens, being deceased, can no longer obtain a dictionary to correct his misapplication of the English language. But perhaps you should do so...

... I'm not critical of his decision to remain in Georgia and attempt to make the best of a disastrous situation. Home is home.

Care to tell us where you rank “home is home” in terms of your own priorities? Does it come before or after ‘God,’ ‘family,’ and ‘country?’

Unilateral "secession" was not made more unconstitutional because of anything he said. I quoted him because his words reflected sound political judgment.

Given that the Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, it is quite true that Mr. Stephens words do not make “unilateral ‘secession’...unconstitutional.” But I must suggest that “political judgement” that contradicts the written terms of the Constitution hardly qualifies as “sound:” perhaps ‘pragmatic’ would be a more applicable term...

;>)

[ned]

I think that Mr. Stephens meant exactly what he said. When the delegates to the Georgia “secession” convention voted to unilaterally “secede,” they genuinely meant to terminate the U.S. Government’s ability to exercise its constitutional powers in the state of Georgia. It is occasionally unclear to me whether you fully appreciate that facet of unilateral “secession.” They really did intend to do just that and it is in that regard that it involved an attempt to “overthrow” the government. The argument that the Constitution reserves to the states or to the people of a state or to anyone an implied constitutional right to overthrow the Federal government in any portion of the country is simply not indisputably correct. It’s really not even mildly persuasive to me. But I respect your right to have your own point of view on the constitutional issue.

Andrew Jackson suggested that the southern effort to constitutionalize the claimed right of unilateral “secession” was motivated by a desire to disguise its revolutionary character:

"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure." – Andrew Jackson (1832)

Do you think that Jackson was mistaken in that regard?