[DiogenesLamp]

It’s not ironic or analogous. The slavocrisy may have had the prerogative to revolt, but they didn’t have the moral righteousness of their cause. Lincoln understood and respected the original text and the original intent where the south did not: you don’t rebel unless you have a damn good reason. The south didn’t have one.

A "good reason" is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously the colonists thought they had a "good reason" while the British Crown and the third of the population which remained loyalists did not think so.

This topic is not complicated, it's about consensus vs coercion. If you believe people should be compelled to do something against their will, then your place is with the totalitarians of history. If you believe people's membership in an organization ought to be voluntary, then your place is with those of us who love this concept called "freedom."

If you are on the forcing people to follow you at gun point end of the debate, you haven't grasped this fundamental concept.

The Slavers were wrong for forcing people to work for them against their will, and the Union was wrong for forcing people to obey them against their will.

Once again, the irony is lost.

[rockrr]

Your place isn’t with the “freedom lovers” it’s with the anarchists. Remember, it wasn’t so much what the confeds did that relegated them to the ashbin of history - it was the way they went about it.

I’m happy to stand with the vast majority rather than the lunatic fringe.