The Supreme Court disagrees.

So if you secede from the nation governed by the constitution you’re still entitled to its protections? Does the constitution have jurisdiction outside the United States? Bit of a contradiction no?

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “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.” On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.” Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil - evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” There’s more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

Funnily enough, the Confederate constitution actually banned the foreign slave trade.

Actually David, almost all your conclusions are wrong, which is understandable because this video doesn't actually give you the real picture and history if the country. Essentially, the speaker is like most Lincoln propagandists. The Constitution not only gave the right of secession, pretty much everyone in the country from the man on the street to all politicians knew such. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a segregationist who wanted to ship all black people to Africa or Panama. The War was about tariffs, which was pretty much the only source of federal revenue. Tariffs were extremely high to protect Northern industry and the South was opposed to continually being screwed. The South was absolutely morally wrong about slavery, and the world had pretty much abolished slavery except there. Odds are slavery would have been abolished peacefully within a few years like every place else in the world. You ever notice in Lincoln's address he reassured the South of slave rights and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't happen until 1863? And slavery mot ended in Northern states until after the War? This speaker is full of bs. Lincoln didn't try to avoid the War, he instigated it. A comment can't begin to educate someone, but if you want to know actually history you have to go research it and not just take the word of cult-like Lincoln "scholars" who feed you cherry-picked bullshit. Both sides were wrong. The result was a transformation of a federation of states with a very limited federal government. Go actually read the Constitution. Lincoln was: A fat cat rich lawyer with clients of the Northern railroads and banks, which hand-picked him to be Prez. A virtual dictator, who suspended habeus corpus and arrested 10' of thousands of Northern opponents without charges or trials. Ran essentially gulags for political prisoners, like Ft. Lafayette on an island in NY. Issued a warrant for the Chief Justice and placed him under house arrest by the military until he got in line with Lincoln. Threatened to arrest the entire Maryland legislature and used military force to intimidate them. Shut down over 200 Northern newspapers who disagreed with him. If tried today, he would be considered a war criminal. You need to actually go dig up history instead of accepting a bunch of lies made up to create St. Abe by people who disliked him when he was alive. Lincoln was a nasty blight that the people who wanted a powerful centralized government with virtually no limits idolized. And do today.

@@keithgraham9547 Yes you're correct. Lincoln did not free the slaves to improve the condition of the black man, nor because he believed that slavery was morally wrong, he simply freed the slaves to keep the union together. He wanted to send black people back to Africa. He didn't believe they should have the right to vote etc. Also the north wanted to acquire the cheap labor that the south had if the slaves were granted their freedom. Am I now on the right track? Because I had corrected myself long before your reply. This comment was mainly me trying to understand exactly what the speaker in this video was trying to say mainly as a studying tool for myself until I had found a better video. I was mainly confused by his interpretation of Lincoln's speech and was hoping someone would come and maybe sort things out. The day I made this comment I spent long hours digging for the right answer.

@@keithgraham9547 thank you

@@davidhall4401 Hey again. American history as taught, particularly about Lincoln and the Civil War, is almost all lies. You have to really dig, there is a guy named DiLorenzo, I think, who writes well on the subject. Look up the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions by Jefferson and Madison to start. Then recognize the Suoreme Court made a power grab in 1803 with "Marbury," then the Missouri Compromise essentially ended slavery expansion. The Civil War essentially ended Jeffersonian Democracy and replaced it with the start of a more socialist powerful central government. Good luck and have fun learning the real history!

Little black squash balls

@@rodneybaker4296 This machine creates centipedes