Do you grasp the meaning of my point which is put forth in the previously mentioned joke?
"We've already determined what kind of girl you are, now we are just negotiating over price."
That the "rump" isn't economically viable is of no interest to the concept of an inviolable principle. If "Preserving the Union" is the cause for which it was appropriate to force 600,000 men to die, than any tolerance for leaving the Union paints that assertion as a bald faced lie.
It's like negotiating rape. If it is negotiable, then it has no moral compulsion.
I have to say I was not aware that Lincoln was willing to negotiate away part of the Union in exchange for an important state like Virginia. The one redeeming factor in his conduct was the belief that he really stood for a principle that the Union *MUST* be preserved, but which I can respect as a valid moral position though I disagree with it
Now you have informed me that he was like the girl who would have sex for money, but needed to negotiate a sufficient price. He was indeed the Bill Clinton of the 1860s. Clever unprincipled lawyer who had no solid moral foundation.
He was willing to break the principle of "the Union must be preserved" if the price was not too steep. This must be comforting news to all who were killed. They were just casualties of not being able to make a better deal.
Second, all Unionists (then and now) acknowledged a "right of secession", with the approval of Congress, or some material breech of compact, but none recognized unilateral declarations of secession, especially for no material cause.
I have addressed this point before, though you may not have seen it. Do you think anyone in congress was unaware of the South's intention to secede? Do you really think not going through the formal pomp and circumstance is sufficient reason to deny the right of self determination to a populace? I will once again point you to the founding principle as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
--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.
I knew Lincoln was willing to negotiate away slavery. I did not know that he was willing to negotiate away part of the Union. That this was pragmatism over principle I do not doubt, but that is not what I had been led to believe about Lincoln. I have been led to believe that Lincoln saw it as his duty to preserve the Union, and the notion that he was willing to allow a secession if he could just get a big enough piece of the pie puts the lie to that claim.
It has further changed my opinion of Lincoln for the worse. As a result of what you told me, I no longer think he had a claim to any moral high ground, and was in fact just the sort of tyrant warned about in the anti-Federalist papers.
Now the question remains, how can *YOU* see him as a saintly man? Continue to allow slavery? Check. Allow partial secession? Check. Fighting for economic and military supremacy? Check.
Where are the moral justifications in support of that horrible war?
The Union had many forts and installation in the South. By April all had been taken over by the CSA except Sumter and a couple in FL.
Lincoln offered the state of Virginia that he would pull troops out of Sumter if VA would drop the idea of secession.
This did not constitute a recognition of secession in any way. He continued to claim that all Union property in the CSA still belonged to the Union. He merely recognized that efforts to reoccupy it would at the moment be unwise.
He also never recognized the legitimacy, legality or constitutionality of secession.
To Lincoln the seceded states never left the Union de jure, however de facto that separation was.
Let me make a hypothetical argument.
Let’s say the state of California was taken over by a radical La Raza party and voted to secede. They then began oppression of the Anglo and black minorities in the state.
Would the United States have the moral and constitional right to enforce the US Constitution, by force if necessary? Or does a temporary majority in a single state have the right to remove the protections promised by “the people of the United State” to all individuals within each state?
BTW, we may be headed towards something very like this in the state of Hawaii.
Seems to me you work hard to distort & distract, and I'll admit, you're pretty good at it.
But the facts are still the facts.
The fact is that neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln ever agreed that unilateral declarations of secession were lawful.
And both were willing to abandon Federal properties, to prevent bloodshed.
Lincoln was also willing to abandon Fort Sumter, if he could get something of major value for it: a pledge by Virginia not to secede.
Such a pledge from Virginia was essential for Lincoln to begin any actions directed at restoring or preserving the Union.
Why is that not clear to you?
DiogenesLamp: "I have to say I was not aware that Lincoln was willing to negotiate away part of the Union in exchange for an important state like Virginia."
I never said such a thing!
We are talking only about Fort Sumter, not the entire Confederacy!
Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln ever admitted the principle of unilateral unprovoked declarations of secession.
DiogenesLamp: "Do you think anyone in congress was unaware of the South's intention to secede?
Do you really think not going through the formal pomp and circumstance is sufficient reason to deny the right of self determination to a populace?"
From Day One the United States has been a nation of laws with a Constitution spelling out lawful procedures.
Logically, and by our Founders intent, secession should require the same process in reverse as joining the Union -- legislatures apply to and receive approval by Congress.
Had secessionists in 1861 followed such a process, President Lincoln would have abided by whatever Congress instructed him.
DiogenesLamp: "...the notion that he [Lincoln] was willing to allow a secession if he could just get a big enough piece of the pie puts the lie to that claim."
Absolute distortion of my words, or anybody elses!
Lincoln was willing to consider, and did consider, removing Union troops from Fort Sumter -- PERIOD!
He was never willing to concede that either secession or the Confederacy itself was legitimate.
Now you've had your fun at Lincoln's expense, time to get over it -- indeed, it's time to grow up, pal.