Was secession "legal"?

[BrianMcCandliss]

Truth is a defense of itself.

Tell me, Mr. Layton: by what law does the federal Union legitimately claim national authority over we, the citizens of the individual states?

And if none, then why should we submit to and tolerate this hostile occupation by it-- and our enslavement to it-- as sovereign citizens of our respective states: for, lacking legal authority, they are nothing but armed thugs?

Should we not denounce them as such-- and respond them them appropriately? Discretion may be the better part of valor, but enemy-collaboration is not!

[williamlayton]

By radification and that is a legal and binding instrument.
Blessings

[BrianMcCandliss]

By radification and that is a legal and binding instrument.
Blessings

You mean the Constitution? How do you square this with Madison's statement in Federalist 39, that "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act"?

Also, there is nothing in the Constitution which expresses or implies that the states lose their soveriegnty by ratifying it; rather, it is expressly stated in Amendment 10, that all powers of the US, are DELEGATED to it by the United States-- and this context is taken directly from the Articles of Confederation, in which state previously retained its sovereignty, freedom and indepenedence-- which were never thereafter ceded.

Hence, the term "delegated," is used by the Founders and Framers in a context which in no way denies or disparages the sovereignty, freedom or independence of any state.

Finally, during the Constitutional Convention, Madison specifically precluded the use of federal force as a means to compel the compliance of any state: rather, he expressly stated-- with perfect foresight-- that such a means, would be seen more as an act of war against the given state.

Rather, Lincoln's statement that "the states intended that the Union should be perpetual" is pure blather or ignorance, since the states seceded from that union just prior to ratifying the Constitution! The Union formed under the Constitution, was an entirely new and separate union from that formed under the Articles.

Finally, Article VI states that only state judges are bound by the Constitution as Supreme Law, "any thing in the laws or constitution of any state to the contrary notwithstanding; meanwhile in contrast, all other officials are bound by oath or affirmation to SUPPORT the Constitution-- while the part about any other law or constitution is likewise omitted.

Hence, the Constitution was clearly an INTERNATIONAL compact-- a treaty, in fact. As such, Madison clearly states immediately afterward in Federalist 39, that "In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

And so, it's pretty clear that the Civil War was simply a trumped-up coup-- and that all the support for its legitimacy, is simply the mass-regurgitation of several lifetimes of force-fed propaganda.

My "solution" to this debacle, then-- is to END it; recognize the sovereignty of the individual states as sovereign nations, and let them deal with that as they will: to remain in the Union, or to secede from it at any time they wish.

THAT, after all, is the proper interpretation of the existing written law. And if the government will not read the law properly, then it can demand no more from its citizens, with whom the law stands with it as supreme covenant.

[Sundown Holly]

Wow, this is really a hot issue. So why was the Civil War/ War between the States fought? Was it fought over slavery? My ancestors in Pennsylvania were rabid abolitionist. Before the war our home was a stop on the underground railway. When the war started they stripped their house of anything brass (door knobs, door knockers, dresser handles, etc) and donated the brass so it could be mealted down and made into cannon.  Why did they do this?  Because to them the war was about ONE thing only: SLAVERY.  Many black Americans in the North joined to fight also, for one reason:SLAVERY.  The rich Southern planters in the South that helped foot the bill for the war did so for the primary reason of preserving SLAVERY.  In all these cases the purpose of the war was about Slavery. I don't think that can be disputed. If it stopped there, that would be the end of it, but it doesn't.

     I've read Lincolns speeches (you can do a web search--the texts are all available).  He said on more than one occassion that if he could save the Union by FREEING the slaves, he would do it. If he could save the Union by keeping slavery INTACT, he WOULD DO IT. His Emancipation Proclaimation freed ONLY those slaves that were in Southern controlled lands. He Exempted slaves in the North,  New Orleans (which by then the Northern Armies controlled) and West Virginia (which was pro North).  In Missouri, Union Commander John Fremont was freeing slaves as fast as he could. Lincoln ordered him to stop and ordered those slaves to be returned to a state of slavery. Freedom didn't come for ALL blacks till the end of the war with the ratification of the 13th Ammendment. If the war were primarily about slavery you would think that the Union would be freeing blacks right and left whenever and wherever they could. This did not happen.

     Want to muddy the waters a little more? General Grant was a slave owner.  His wife would visit him on the field and bring her 4 slaves. When asked about it, Grant replied "Good help is hard to find."  In reference to why the war was being fought he said words to the effect, "God help us if it's only about slavery. If it were about slavery I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the south."   In contrast to this, Genreal Robert  E Lee was anti slavery. In 1862 his wife inherited 160 slaves. Lee ordered them released and even went so far as to pay for the passage of those who wanted to, to return to Africa to the state of Liberia. Some of those freed slaves corresponded with Lee for the rest of his life.

     For many in the North, and South, it was about slavery.  By and large though, most Southerners didn't own slaves. They responded becasue their country (as the individual states were known back then) was invaded by the armies of the North. Remember, Virginia didn't invade New York, and North Carolina didn't invade Massachusettes (did I spell that right?!?).  The war began when the South was invaded.

     There were many slave Nations at the beginning of the 1800s. France, England, Canada, and many other nations ended slavery without a war by using what was known as "Compensated Emancipation." That is, by law you must free the slaves, and by law the Government must compensate you for it.  Only in America was a war fought,  and largely because of the invasion. Some states like Virginia were reluctant to leave the Union, and only did so when it became clear that the North intended to invade. Check out a map of famous Civil War battlefields. Most of them are in the South, with about 90% of them being in Virginia.  In the North you had Gettysburg and Antietam as the major ones. The bulk of the battles were fought in the Souths back yard.  If an army invaded your home town and attacked how would YOU respond?  You would fight, just like Southern whites AND blacks did, not to preserve slavery, but to protect your home.

     So, where does that leave us?  To my abolitionist ancestors it was a war over slavery. To millions of black Americans then , and today it was about slavery, and who can tell them they are wrong?  To the rank and file Southern soldier it was about protecting your home from an armed aggressor. By the way, as a side note, when the Country was being formed, Virginia, Rhode Island and one or two other states didnt' want to join for fear they would loose their sovereignty.  It was only after Virginia was assured that they could leave the Union if they ever changed their mind, that they elected to join. So much for promises.

[BrianMcCandliss]

So, where does that leave us? To my abolitionist ancestors it was a war over slavery. To millions of black Americans then , and today it was about slavery, and who can tell them they are wrong?

Lincoln himself:

Wow, this is really a hot issue. So why was the Civil War/ War between the States fought? Was it fought over slavery?

NO. Lincoln stated quite clearly in his First Inaugural Address, that
1) he had no intention or right to interfere with slavery where it existed; and
2) he would only use force to enforce the laws of the Union-- and that no state could lawfully get out of the Union of its own sole motion without permission of other states.

To wit, from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

Regarding slavery:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
  Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
  I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
  There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.  
  It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
  There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
  Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?  
  I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.  

Here, therefore, Lincoln disavows ANY INTENTION of abolishing slavery in places where it existed.

Now in contrast, consider his statements regarding Union perpetuity:

 It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.  
  I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.  
  Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
  Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."  
  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.  
  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
 
  I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

  In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

Clearly, Lincoln doesn't care about slavery, but simply about preserving the Union-- by any means necessary

Likewise, Lincoln attacked the South because they refused these terms.
Finally, at the Hampton Roads Conference between the North and South, Jefferson Davis agreed to release all slaves and re-join the Union, if Lincoln would agree to recognize the sovereignty of the states; Lincoln refused, demanding that the states agree to perpetuity, and offering instead to allow slavery to remain.

Anyone who thinks the Civil War was fought on the basis of slavery, is just plain ignorant of readily-available information-- and probably thinks that the Revolutionary War was fought over tea.

My ancestors in Pennsylvania were rabid abolitionist. Before the war our home was a stop on the underground railway. When the war started they stripped their house of anything brass (door knobs, door knockers, dresser handles, etc) and donated the brass so it could be mealted down and made into cannon.  Why did they do this?  Because to them the war was about ONE thing only: SLAVERY.  Many black Americans in the North joined to fight also, for one reason:SLAVERY.  The rich Southern planters in the South that helped foot the bill for the war did so for the primary reason of preserving SLAVERY.  In all these cases the purpose of the war was about Slavery. I don't think that can be disputed. If it stopped there, that would be the end of it, but it doesn't.

This was just a race-baiting LIE. Yankees prevalently hated slavery, simply because they hated blacks; the Civil War was fought under the premise, that all black slaves would be sent back to Africa once the war was over; in fact, the nation of Liberia was created for this reason.

It makes no sense that these states would want slave-states to remain in the Union, if they were so ashamed of it. Rather, they just wanted to get blacks out of the Union, by and large.

The south seceded out of freedom-- i.e. the right of self-government; once secession occurred, slavery wouldn't have lasted much longer, due to simple economic reasons of Northern boycotts against slave-made goods, and the end of fugitive slave-laws in the North causing security-costs of slave-owners to exceed the savings from simply freeing the slaves and hiring them as sharecroppers. In this light, slavery was more just a political label, than an economic status;  slave-holders were prevented by law from freeing their slaves, and so as time went on and labor became more plentiful in the South, it became more and more costly to keep slaves who had outgrown their usefulness-- in fact more and more slave-owners ended up bankrupt because they had to care for slaves beyond their productive capability.

This is EXACTLY what happened in every OTHER slave-holding country in the Western Hemisphere-- and most of the world (except for current slave-holding nations like Sudan).
You just don't hear a single peep about those, because this exposes the reality of Yankee racism and hypocrisy.

[ironfoot]

"Clearly, Lincoln doesn't care about slavery..."
Not true, and I bet you know that it isn't true.
Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's Coopers Union speech, and the Republican platform from when Lincoln was endorsed. They all demonstrate the anti-slavery stance of Lincoln and the Republican party. It was because Lincoln was well know as being anti-slavery that the South seceded. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but the more pressing concern when he was elected was to preserve the Union over which which he was elected president.

[ironfoot]

Brian: ]"However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding."

Me: What is it then?  

Brian: A federal document, whereby each state is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Madison, Federalist 39).

Me: You didn't read Madison closely did you? Here is what he actually said in Federalist 39:
"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both."

Since you rely on the Federalist papers, you may find Hamilton, Federalist 11, interesting, when he states "Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system...."

I hope we don't have to define "American" for you again.

I like the truth, don't you?

Who are your heroes again, besides yourself?

[BrianMcCandliss]

"Clearly, Lincoln doesn't care about slavery..."
Not true, and I bet you know that it isn't true.
Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's Coopers Union speech, and the Republican platform from when Lincoln was endorsed. They all demonstrate the anti-slavery stance of Lincoln and the Republican party. It was because Lincoln was well know as being anti-slavery that the South seceded. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but the more pressing concern when he was elected was to preserve the Union over which which he was elected president.

Lincoln was a quintessential "ruthless politician," who said and did precisely what he thought would give him the desired result-- and used his success as a self-justifying prophecy. In addition to speaking out against slavery-- which he did simply to "divide and conquer" by invoking abolitionist agitation-- he also spoke out of the OTHER side of his mouth in DEFENDING slavery, as best suited his purpose.

This was the type of politics espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli, in that a national leader or "prince" was advised to say and do whatever it took to maintain power-- since in politics, those in power can do no wrong.

In Lincoln's mind, "truth" was whatever served his purposes-- which is known in psychological circles as Sociopathic Anti-social Disorder. Quite simply, Lincoln was a deranged lunatic whose success has painted him in history books as a hero, and twisted facts regarding prior history (such as the law regarding secession) to follow suit.

This has been the case in history for many tyrannical rulers, and it's the saddest fact in American history that

You seem quite naive on this topic, and you've simply swept my other points under the rug, such as the plan to re-locate all emancipated slaves to Liberia; I have to seriously question where you've gotten your education on this topic-- other than Lincoln's perpetual bevvy of acolytic sheep, and othe intellectual morons. This is why I say I can't even communicate with someone who lacks the education to discuss the subject with any degree of intelligence.

[BrianMcCandliss]

[repeat post deleted]

[BrianMcCandliss]

[repeat post deleted]

[BrianMcCandliss]

Brian: ]"However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding."

Me: What is it then?  

Brian: A federal document, whereby each state is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Madison, Federalist 39).

Me: You didn't read Madison closely did you? Here is what he actually said in Federalist 39:
"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both."

Since you rely on the Federalist papers, you may find Hamilton, Federalist 11, interesting, when he states "Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system...."

But Hamilton didn't have squat to do with actually writing the Constitution however. Madison, meanwhile, was the FATHER of the Constitution.
Likewise, Madison DID say in Federalist 39, that "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
Get it? It's not "national" in the sense that the states can be constrained into the union against their absolute and final will. Rather, they remain sovereign nations, who merely DELEGATE authority to the federal government, for the purposes of subjective benefit; once this benefit ends, they are of course at liberty to depart. What sort of IDIOT would give up that option?
Apparently, Lincoln thought that the Founders, Framers and ratifying states were-- or at least would have others believe such.

Likewise, Hamilton is merely pontificating, not stating an actual context. He also describes the union as an "empire," and sought to create a US government that was a carbon-copy of Great Britain; not the United States OF America, but simply a single state called "America" (which is pretty doofus, since America's a CONTINENT, there are TWO or THREE of them).
Rather, every state sought to remain a sovereign nation, each with its own name, government, boundaries, people and cultural heritage. The Union was just for mutual benefit!

Finally, 0n 31 May 1787, the Constitutional Convention considered adding to the powers of Congress the right "to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof."

The clause was rejected after James Madison spoke against it:

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

Hence, Lincoln's claim that the Constitution authorized force to compel compliance by any state, was purely his own invention-- backed by force.
Amazing how anyone could support and defend such a scurrilous tyrant!

[williamlayton]

Brian
I think your comment towards Ironfoot was rude and useless. You have your eyes rolled back in your head and can only hear your own thoughts.
Now, I will admit too being rude.
You must concede that greater minds than you have seen things 180 degrees from you conclusions, which you must admit, are mostly chosen out of context too support your own pre-concieved conclusions. Circular reasoning, I think.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

Brian: (Lincoln) "...spoke out of the OTHER side of his mouth in DEFENDING slavery, as best suited his purpose."

Me: What are your proofs?

I have discussed the Liberia issue in prior posts, before you joined the forum. I did not ignore it. You simply did not do your research. Lincoln was exploring ways to resolve the slavery issue. he knew that many in the south, and in the north too for that matter, would not accept blcaks as equals. The fact that later Lincoln was so bold as to propose that some blacks should be given the right to vote was enough for Booth to solidify his plan to kill Lincoln.

Brian: "Madison, meanwhile, was the FATHER of the Constitution."

Me: Washington was the father of our COUNTRY. He referred to it as  COUNTRY.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html

Hamiton's arguments can simply be ignored?
You held up the Federalist Papers in support of your arguments. Now you pick and choose which parts can be relied on? The Federalist Papers were intended to convince the populous to support Union. Hamilton made it clear it was to be indisoluble. That may explain why the Constitution had provisions for amendments, and to add states, but no provision for states to secede.
 
You simply pick and choose the evidence that fits your minority view.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Brian
I think your comment towards Ironfoot was rude and useless.

A quotation would help.

You have your eyes rolled back in your head and can only hear your own thoughts.

Truth is a defense of itsself. If you have a fact-based argument, let's hear it; otherwise if you have an issue-- here's a tissue!

Now, I will admit too being rude.
You must concede that greater minds than you have seen things 180 degrees from you conclusions, which you must admit, are mostly chosen out of context too support your own pre-concieved conclusions. Circular reasoning, I think.

No I must NOT. There IS no greater mind than the truth: It's called the self-evident principle: A is A.

And those who differ, likewise tend to have ULTERIOR MOTIVES.  They want to protect their job, their reputation, their ill-gotten power and privileges, or simply their illusions. I really don't give a damn; I only care about the truth-- and I really have no use for those who don't.
 
My reasoning is not circular, but direct: the states were sovereign nations from the beginning, and remained such under the Constitution. Q.E.D.

If you have arguments to the contrary, let's see the proof. Otherwise, it must be recognized that we live under an evil empire.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Hamiton's arguments can simply be ignored?

Bingo. They were just that-- ARGUMENTS; they were not the Constitution itself. Hamilton was simply proposing his own ideals of a federalist empire, and had nowhere near Madison's influence and involvement with the actual authoring of the Constitution. The term "indissoluble" was simply an affectation, and had no legal effect; the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had the same sentiment, since "perpetual" means the same thing.

Hamilton also referred to the Union as an "empire;" why do you conveniently omit this fact? Seriously, you go holding up Hamilton and the Federalist Papers as some sort of "inerrant holy canon," but you omit his VERY FIRST WORDS-- as well as the very first words of the Federalist Papers-- Federalist No. 1? This is the crowning irony:

"AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world."

So if you consider Hamilton to be gospel on the Constitution, then you must also consider the US to be an empire by right.

You held up the Federalist Papers in support of your arguments.

Wrongo. I held up MADISON'S DISCLAIMER. The fact that it was IN the Federalist Papers, didn't per se bind me to everything in them, written by everyone else as well! The Federalist papers were simply that: the position of the Federalist party on the Constitution, which was the far left in terms of a stronger central government;  naturally, the Anti-federalists had some input as well.

Likewise, Hamilton wasn't the father of the Constitution-- MADISON was.

Now you pick and choose which parts can be relied on? The Federalist Papers were intended to convince the populous to support Union. Hamilton made it clear it was to be indisoluble. That may explain why the Constitution had provisions for amendments, and to add states, but no provision for states to secede.  You simply pick and choose the evidence

Wrongo again. Madison made quite clear that the states were sovereign, and to be bound by their own voluntary act;  I also pointed out quite clearly that Madison, in the Constitution, precluded any Constitutional authority to initiate force against a state.

Since the authority to use force against the states was illegal unconstitutional, then so was the entire Civil War.

Finally, I've stated-- quite repeatedly, in fact-- that the inclusion of a provision to allow secession, would implicitly DENY a state's basic sovereignty, since it would imply that the states needed written PERMISSION to secede. Sovereign nations, by definition, need no such "permission," since they recognize no superior.

Rather the 9th and 10th amendments implicitly covered this right, in that all federal powers regarding the state were merely delegated, and that the Constitution was not to be so construed that previously-retained rights would be denied or disparaged.

Therefore it is YOU who argues selectively.

Let me spell it out for you: the states had no such written permission to secede, under the articles of Confederation; and yet they all seceded from THAT union "by their own mere motion."

Therefore, you're claiming one of two things:

1) that the states DIDN'T secede from the Confederate Union of 1781, but just adopted the Constitution in place of the Articles, as Lincoln claimed;

2)  that the states somehow had the right to secede from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, but not the union formed under the Constitution-- and granted the US the right to use force to keep any and every state which tried to secede.

So whichever answer you're claiming, let's see your proof.

that fits your minority view.

Logical error: Appeal to popularity. A is A, whether the whole bloody world says so or not. Do you claim otherwise? (This should be good).
Seriously, implying the automatic veracity of brainwashed masses, is really just plain dumb; this information has been suppressed-- along with the media-- during the entire Civil War era by law, and pretty much ever since by habit and ulterior motive.

Likewise, it WASN'T a "minority view" in the original Constitutional union-- and generation which ratified it-- since it was always mutually held among the states, that they each had the right to secede at will; as proof of this,  secession was considered several times by various states, and never once opposed under grounds of perpetuity-- or threat of force.
As such, it WAS the original-- and BINDING-- intent of the Constitution, that every state had the sovereign right to secede, just like with the United Nations today.

Or do you deny this as well?