Yeah, the north didn't have a good reason like slavery on their side.
Yeah that's what they want you to think. Delaware and Kentucky didn't even ratify the 13th amendment until 1901 and 1976 respectively so you know slavery was legal in those non Southern states until the 13th amendment was passed in December of 1865. Common sense would tell you that.
You're smart, I never questioned that. Although your revisionist history leaves a lot to be desired...but then that's what makes you so fun to banter with.
Revisionist my foot! I was stuck with revisionist history in school. Luckily my granddaddy straightened it out for me. You actually remind me of my 3rd grade teacher, a woman from Illinois who swore that Lincoln was a saint. Should have seen her when my granddaddy got through with her! She probably never taught the War for Southern Independence the same way again.
And seceeding states would do none of those things as they were no longer "states" in the constitutional sense. Article I sec. 10 bascially tells member states that you are either completely "in" or completely "out", there is no middle ground. In the case of the CSA, they wanted completely out.
When viewed agaisnt the "out or "in" context, the article in question makes perfect sense as allowing member states to be "some what in, but also out" would make the nation ungovernable.
No. Forming a confederation of states was act completed. The states didn't go anywhere. It was their confederation that was unconstitutional. There was no secession.