[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Madison opposed secession, but he also conceded it was an option of last resort to escape from intolerable oppression (though he said such an act, while perhaps justified, would constitute revolution)."

And that is exactly my viewpoint. What the Southern states practiced was not secession, but revolution. There's a big difference. Revolution is illegal according to our laws or any country's laws. Secession of a state would be when both parties agreed to it through law, amendment process or some other political act.

That is why Paul's statements are idiocy, ignorance and most importantly dangerous. That is to blame 600,000 deaths on Lincoln as if the Southern states gave him some other option. They were performing an illegal act (rebellion) and initiated the shooting (Fort Sumter). Lincoln had every legal and moral right to put down the rebellion.

An example that all of us should think about. We have many muslims in the Dearborn region of Michighan. What if in the future the muslims there become such a large population that they have the political muscle to get a vote from the residents of the state of Michighan to secede from our country and start their own. Would the southern sympathizers be in favor of that? Something to consider. Do these same southern sympathizers think that the Basques in Spain should be able to break off? There are many ethnic enclaves in differing countries that would like to break off. We did not have a unique situation.

[ought-six]

“An example that all of us should think about. We have many muslims in the Dearborn region of Michighan. What if in the future the muslims there become such a large population that they have the political muscle to get a vote from the residents of the state of Michighan to secede from our country and start their own. Would the southern sympathizers be in favor of that?”

Yeah, they would. Because then they would go Yankee on their sorry asses and invade them and destroy them.