That doesn't sound like something I said. Do you have a link?You know what? You're right. I confused you with another poster. I apologize.
I must therefore conclude the south was justified in seceding since that is consistent with this principle.
How was the federal government destructive of those ends?
And you indirectly admit that their acquiescence was obtained through coercion, and is therefore not a voluntary consent. It was consent obtained under duress.
Much like the British acceptance of American independence.
Lincoln could tolerate Slavery, but he couldn't tolerate people leaving his authority.
Lincoln's beliefs on his responsibility to hold the union together are stated in his first inaugural:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
You know what? You're right. I confused you with another poster. I apologize. No worries. We all make mistakes on occasion. If you are going to argue on the internet, you need to have a thick skin. :)
How was the federal government destructive of those ends?
I believe that is entirely a matter of their perception. You know the usual spiel. The Gradual elimination of slavery, and therefore the eventual burden on their "business" model, Unfair tariff policy, and fear of a President using "Executive Orders" in the manner of the current President, and so on.
I would suggest it is the people who thinks their ox is being gored that should decide if they regard their existing government as "destructive of those ends." A lot of the Colonists didn't think England was treating them so badly. It was the "troublemakers" that did. They persuaded sufficient numbers to decide on a break.
Much like the British acceptance of American independence.
I dare say Britain had far more of a choice than did the Southern States. Britain could still fight and kick our @$$, they just decided it wasn't worth the trouble. The Southern states were in no such position while having that Union foot on their necks.
Quoting Abraham Lincoln
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. ...
...Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? ...
...I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
One thing you can say for certain, Lincoln sure could argue like a lawyer. There is but one glaring discrepancy in his argument. If what he says be true, then by the same argument we should still be part of England. Their Union was perpetual too, you know. United Kingdom. Union Jack.
Their Flag even represents their union by merging the flags of the three primary "states" of the United Kingdom. (England, Scotland, and Ireland. I guess Wales goes a begging.)
Allegiance to England was Perpetual until we invoked an understanding of natural law (Provided by Vattel from the Swiss Republic) that demonstrated it was not.