Replies

. how many does it take to satisfy the term “many” such that your absolutism that the party didn’t favor secession?

Three statements by Republican leaders would do it.

is that the case you want us to find so morally or constitutionally superior to the argument of the millions who were attacked over it?

Well, yes. I do find emancipation and colonization to be morally superior to slavery. Maybe you find those to be morally equivalent. I don't.

“seizure of U.S. property” is bogus. if they never seceded, then it always was U.S. property and no one seized anything.

That's an odd legal theory. Apparently you feel that anyone can take any government property they want, as long as they remain US citizens.

Three statements by Republican leaders would do it.

Well this is a new one. THREE pieces of evidence does a legitmate argument make. Ok, challenge accepted.

- Lysander Spooner (not my favorite, but since you already named him, why leave him out)
- Ezra Heywood
- William Lloyd Garrison

If you change your mind on that number and want 10:
- Wendell Phillips
- Joshua Giddings
- William Slade
- William Jay
- Charles Francis Adams
- Charles Sumner
- John C. Fremont

Giddings by the way presented a list of 329 Northern representatives to Congress in 1856 "praying for a dissolution of the Union". Might be a couple in there.

And for a historical perspective, can I use the 26 delegates from 5 Northern States the Hartford Convention of 1814 - who wished to secede because of Madison's "military despotism" that was affecting their economic interests (sound familiar?), and only backed down because the war ended before they presented their terms in D.C? Pretty sure their lineage all wound up in the Republican party.

And if you want still more, see how many names you can find in the book Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. Or maybe just read SOMETHING other than whatever Lincoln p0rn you have under your bed.

Do I get any extra credit for naming more than 3?

Well, yes. I do find emancipation and colonization to be morally superior to slavery.

Cool beans.

Unfortunately, your boy Lincoln didn't give a rat's turd about emancipating anyone when he waged his war.

Nor did he during the war for anyone in the "non-rebellious" areas of the United States when he issued his proclamation.

Nor did he during the war when he repeatedly told southern leaders that he wouldn't interfere with slavery if they'd just return to the union (and give him his tariff money back).

Excellent job Bubba! You’ve stayed reasonable and rational while your opponents have been increasingly condescending, contradictory, and convoluted.

I applaud your efforts.