Thanks for the excellent series of lectures here. Just went through them for the second time. 🙂
Was wondering about the Crittenden Compromise proposed in early 1861, before war broke out — specifically, regarding the concept of various ‘unamendable’ amendments to the Constitution it proposed. Something bothers me about this ‘unamendable’ concept, as it seems inappropriate to tie the hands of future generations, chaining them to the decisions of the past (the earth belongs to the living, etc.).
Is this ‘unamendable’ idea really valid?
Also, would this have been a large defect in the proposed compromise that might have scared away people who would otherwise have supported it?
Just to clarify, regarding a clearest case for secession — were you meaning in reference to Amar’s proposed methods, or in reference to the Crittenden Compromise itself?
I guess I have a hard time with the idea of, say an amendment for prohibition of alcohol being made unamendable. Can you imagine having been stuck with that, even if society recognized the problems with it and wished to repeal it? It just seems kind of odd to leave no avenue for future generations to undo things which may then be viewed as having been damaging to society. At least with Article I Section 9, 1st clause, it was only in effect until 1808. But the Crittenden Compromise — would this have set in stone things which could never be changed later, by a people who had transcended the prior evils of slavery in the South?