CitadelGrad wrote:Skjellyfetti wrote:
Link?
I think you're confusing the Constitutional Convention and the Continental Congress that drafted the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation were originally titled "Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union" - that was dropped to leave open the door for secession as you stated.
I've never heard of any debate at the Constitutional Convention about secession. But, if there was, I'd be happy to take a look - that would certainly change my views on the legality of secession.

No, you fucking idiot. I know what I'm talking about.
Read a fucking book.
Didn't The Citadel teach you any class?
Or knowledge, for that matter?
I agree with JellyBelly, you are confusing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
James Madison says
Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it......