Your rebuttals tend to be repetitive as well. You claim Lincoln is advocating a right to secession when in fact he's talking about a right to rebellion. And nowhere in that speech does he say that your right to rebel equates to a right to win.
I'm sure the Chinese Generals that brutally murdered the protestors at Tienanmen square can empathize with your position.
Can the Nazi analogies be far behind?
Apparently to your way of thinking, the only thing that makes a person right, is their ability to smash anyone who disagrees with them. Your only argument is "Ultima Ratio Regum".
Once again you have managed to stumble to a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality.
Revolution is a farther bridge than secession. If one can support "Revolution", then one can hardly draw the line at secession.
As for a "right to win", the "right" is to leave, and there should be no fight necessary from a government that respects the very right that created it.
Can the Nazi analogies be far behind?
So you Do see where your ideas lead, don't you?
Finding yourself on the same side as the Nazis really ought to give you pause, but I have faith in your cognitive dissonance to see you through this minor crises.
Once again you have managed to stumble to a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality.
That all your arguments tend to be of the "We Won! Therefore we are RIGHT!" Category? No, that bears a very striking resemblance to reality. It's virtually a constant.
“You claim Lincoln is advocating a right to secession when in fact he’s talking about a right to rebellion.”
That’s a distinction without a difference, because they are the same right! The right to self-governance, aka the right to self-determination. The only difference is in the method being employed to exercise the right.