Well that's just bad logic. That Lincoln trampled constitutional principles, and most especially trampled the Declaration of Independence which was the foundational principle of this nation, does not establish the confederacy as a threat one way or the other.
Someone with the mindset of a dictator does not need good reasons for their abuses. They are just of a mind to force people to bend to their will whether a threat they pose or not.
In actual fact, in early 1861 the Confederacy posed an existential threat to the United States, not only in the Deep South which declared secession over slavery alone.
Every time I see someone bringing up "Slavery" as the South's reason for leaving, I think "Liar wants to change the subject." If something is a "right" then they don't have to have reasons of which you approve to exercise that right. The main point here is "Do they have a right?" If they do, then their "reasons" don't matter. They are entitled to do it anyway.
What you are trying to do is dismiss their right by focusing on their reasons which are objectionable, and thereby deceive people regarding the fact of their rights.
And of course we find out from Abraham Lincoln and General Sherman that it is an utter lie that the Union fought because of slavery. The Union fought ONLY to subjugate the South, and not because they gave a whit about the peculiar institution.
Again, Here's the words of General Sherman which I quoted in a previous message.
" Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late."
The General simply admits the obvious. "Stop fighting and you can keep your slaves. Stop resisting control from Washington D.C. and you can keep your slaves. "
So why are you talking about Slavery when that is not the Moral reason for why the Union invaded and destroyed the South? "DECEIT" is the only reason that comes to mind. You want the evil which was done by the Union atoned for by the after the fact good that was done by the Union, and you want to completely ignore the fact that the Union never had any intention of doing this "good thing" and when they finally did it, they didn't do it because it was the right thing to do, they did it for reasons of "Military/Tactical Advantage," and "REVENGE" and "PUNISHMENT."
You just want to believe that your team was the "good guy" and it really bothers you when the correct and proper truth is pointed out to you.
No, your side was not the good guy in this story. Your side was the most evil of all participants. When it finally did do something good, it didn't do it because it was good, it did it just to be a little bit more evil.
But Lincoln "trampled" nothing, not constitutional principles and especially not the Declaration of Independence.
Lincoln merely responded, as the Constitution requires, to the Confederacy provoking, starting and declaring war on the United States, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
The Constitution specifically requires Federal responses to "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion" and "treason" -- all of which Lincoln faced, and responded to appropriately.
So, no "trampling", except by the Confederacy.
DiogenesLamp: "Every time I see someone bringing up "Slavery" as the South's reason for leaving, I think "Liar wants to change the subject."
If something is a "right" then they don't have to have reasons of which you approve to exercise that right.
The main point here is "Do they have a right?"
If they do, then their "reasons" don't matter.
They are entitled to do it anyway. "
Sorry, FRiend, but all the lies are coming from your side.
But I'll acknowledge that your argument here is subtly different from most Lost Causers, who insist that slavery was only a minor issue, or not really important, and something else was the real reason.
At least it appears here that you don't deny the importance of slavery, at the time, it's just that you say secessionists "have a right" regardless of their reasons, right?
Fine... I agree with a "right of rebellion", when conditions become as intolerable as they were to our Founders in 1776.
But our Founders never exercised, and never justified a "right of rebellion" at pleasure, for no particular reason.
It's also instructive that our Founders never formally declared war on Britain, and were wise enough to figure out a strategy for victory over the Brits vastly more powerful military force.
Indeed, it's more instructive that in 1807, when President Jefferson suspected his former Vice President, Aaron Burr, of travelling to New Orleans to set up a new state and declare his secession, Jefferson had Burr chased down, arrested and tried for treason.
So much for our Founders' belief in a "right to leave" at pleasure.
DiogenesLamp: "What you are trying to do is dismiss their right by focusing on their reasons which are objectionable, and thereby deceive people regarding the fact of their rights. "
But what you are doing is throwing up great clouds of smoke to obscure the fact that the Deep South did secede without causing war, and only their own actions to provoke, start and formally declare war on the United States lead to their ultimate downfall.
DiogenesLamp: "And of course we find out from Abraham Lincoln and General Sherman that it is an utter lie that the Union fought because of slavery.
The Union fought ONLY to subjugate the South, and not because they gave a whit about the peculiar institution."
Like all Lost Cause pro-Confederates, you are dead-set determined to confuse the facts, the issue, yourself and anybody else you can.
In fact, the Union's response to Confederate aggressions was not at first to "free the slaves", nor to "subjugate the South", but at first just to defeat the military power which first provoked, started and declared war on the United States.
Freeing slaves eventually became a Union strategy for winning the war, a strategy which fit nicely with their previous abolitionist beliefs.
And you well know, with half a mind you'd understand all that in a second, and not prattle on endlessly about alleged "lies" from others.
DiogenesLamp: "The General simply admits the obvious.
'Stop fighting and you can keep your slaves.
Stop resisting control from Washington D.C. and you can keep your slaves.' "
Which is somewhat true, at the war's beginning.
After the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, then, well, not so much.
DiogenesLamp: "So why are you talking about Slavery when that is not the Moral reason for why the Union invaded and destroyed the South?"
Because, FRiend, slavery was certainly the "Moral reason" (or rather the im-moral reason) the Deep South declared it's secession, and having once launched and declared war against the Union, slavery was the "Moral reason" why the South did not seek peace until utterly defeated militarily.
So slavery was the South's alpha and omega of Civil War.
DiogenesLamp: ""DECEIT" is the only reason that comes to mind.
You want the evil which was done by the Union atoned for by the after the fact good that was done by the Union, and you want to completely ignore the fact that the Union never had any intention of doing this "good thing" and when they finally did it, they didn't do it because it was the right thing to do, they did it for reasons of 'Military/Tactical Advantage,' and 'REVENGE' and 'PUNISHMENT.' "
Complete and utter rubbish, not a word of truth in it, just the raging insanity of your own mind, FRiend.
You're probably going to need professional help for that.
DiogenesLamp: "You just want to believe that your team was the "good guy" and it really bothers you when the correct and proper truth is pointed out to you.
"No, your side was not the good guy in this story.
Your side was the most evil of all participants.
When it finally did do something good, it didn't do it because it was good, it did it just to be a little bit more evil."
Sorry FRiend, but when you start & declare a war, and then lose, you have little call to complain about the motives, good or bad, of the victorious side.
Starting a war has a moral quality all its own, which outweighs and obviates many other considerations.