Especially when it is in his, and his backer's economic interest for him to change his mind.
Lincoln without a dog in the fight says Independence is a "Sacred Right". Lincoln with massive losses of Federal Revenue from uncollected Tariff's and Lincoln with Wealthy and Powerful Financial backers from the North Eastern Industries jumping up and down on his back, quickly decides that maybe "Independence" is not so much of a "Sacred Right" as he previously believed.
Lincoln may have had similar motives to “save the Union”. While I agree that there can be a moral case for secession, there is not ALWAYS a moral case in every case.
According to the Declaration of Independence, it is up to the people who want independence to decide that they should have it.
,That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Pretty clear to me. Didn't see any conditions stipulated in that document.
In some cases it represents insurrection.
The population of the South which demanded independence was larger than all the original 13 colonies combined. I'm sure the British thought the colonies were engaging in "insurrection" too, but our system of governance is based on the idea that people have a right to become independent of a government that no longer suits their interests.
I’m sure there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
It is not a question of other people being hypocrites. Bad behavior on their part does not justify bad behavior on Lincoln's part, and since Lincoln was the sole man responsible for initiating and continuing the war, it is his hypocrisy and that of his invaders which should be focused upon.
But, make no mistake, slavery was abolished in the US because Christians saw it as their Christian duty to do so.
That is the narrative that the Union Government, having killed 750,000 people, having destroyed half a nation's worth of economic wealth, and having caused a massive and lingering social disaster, would prefer that your believe. It is not however, the truth.
Slavery was ended for the purpose of making good on a war tactic threat. It was a "Dirty Harry "Make my day" " event. Lincoln thought that if he could threaten them with the loss of their capital and the core of their economic engine, he could intimidate them into capitulating. They fought on, and he made good on the threat he had made.
Again, if slavery was ended for "Christian" and "Moral" reasons, that "ending" would have started with the Union Slave States, not the enemy slave states. Here is what the London Spectator said about the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
The Government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict....The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.
That is the most accurate summation of it I have ever seen.
“According to the Declaration of Independence, it is up to the people who want independence to decide that they should have it...
Pretty clear to me. Didn’t see any conditions stipulated in that document.”
It is clear. But your position is not so much. Slaves were people. Slaves wanted independence. Should they not have received it?
The Declaration of Independence is an important document because it explains WHY the Revolution happened. It provides some guidance as to the intent of the founders when interpreting the Constitution and early laws. But the Declaration of Independence does not have any governing authority like the Constitution does.
The Constitution does NOT provide any specific condition in which secession is warranted. Nor does it provide a method for doing so. It does, however, specifically grant authority to Congress to suppress insurrections:
“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.... Article I, Section 8, Clause 15
Further, your analogy breaks down because, in order to achieve independence, the colonies DID have to fight a war. But you are arguing that the South should have been able to simply put the Union on notice that they were seceding without a war being necessary. Even if secession is justified, the expectation that this can happen by simply drafting a letter is unrealistic.
“our system of governance is based on the idea that people have a right to become independent of a government that no longer suits their interests”
Can I take that as a “yes” as to BLM getting to set up their own private government within areas of the country that are mostly black? They want police no-go zones. Are you okay with towns in Michigan being governed by Shariah law if the majority there prefer it?
“The population of the South which demanded independence was larger than all the original 13 colonies combined.”
The 13 colonies were fighting for their freedom. The South was fighting to keep freedom from millions of slaves.
How about the rights of those who had been born into a system of slavery? Do they not have a right to a government that represents them?
“That is the narrative that the Union Government”
It is not merely a “narrative”. It is a historical fact that Christian abolitionists were working hard since before the founding of this nation to end slavery. They had not reached enough support in public opinion to resolve the issue when the nation was founded. But many were against slavery and for emancipation from the start. And it was the Christian influence. Protestant Christian particularly. And it is not simply a matter of the majority identifying as Christian. It is particularly BECAUSE of their Christian faith that they took this position and actually tried to change society.
“Slavery was ended for the purpose of making good on a war tactic threat.”
Now you are getting into kooky conspiracy theory territory. Regardless of financial or political reasons for Lincoln or others to support the war and emancipation of slaves, the majority in the north wanted to end slavery. The war was not fought merely to save face for Lincoln.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that the Civil War was the only way or the best way to resolve the slavery issue. I agree with the conclusion many people draw that the rights of states were damaged in the process. But the notion that slavery, as it existed in the US, was acceptable, is an untenable position.
And your argument for an independent South does not make the case successfully. It fails to address the human rights of the slaves who were not citizens at the time but were humans under the jurisdiction of this nation. They had human rights which were not being protected. And that had to change. One way or the other.