No it wouldn't have, but it is not unreasonable for those people to have believed at the time that every obstacle against it would have been thrown at them by the Lincoln administration.
There would have been no proclamation or legal justification for it if there wasn't a war going on.
And a war made it legal? What part of the constitution was that under?
If it's purely subjective whether a right to revolution exists, it's subjective all the way around. Your subjective assertion that your rights are being violated conflicts with my assertion that they aren't and the result is war.
King George did not agree with the colonists that they had been abused. They thought they had. Citing their example, I would suggest that the precedent is to favor the dissatisfied people, not the advocate of the status quo.
But it's not even that your "rights" were being violated, it's that you think that they might possibly be violated some day. That doesn't sound like a real rationale for revolution or rebellion. There was something opportunistic about secession: the leaders were trying to exploit a momentary panic. They weren't committed to working within the nation, but were using the emotionalism of the moment to enhance their own power.
And so the public was stampeded into wanting independence. Tell me, how closely have you studied the founding era? Only 1/3 of the population was truly committed to independence. Another ~ 1/3 was opposed, and the remaining 1/3 was apathetic.
I would say the fact that they got it past a vote is sufficient legitimization for the direction they wished to take their states.
Moreover, Lincoln knew and was friends with Alexander Stephens. He was in Congress with Stephens, Toombs, Cobb, and Rhett. They knew him. They knew what he was like. They knew that the hysteria about Lincoln's election didn't reflect what the man was actually like. They knew he wasn't a true abolitionist. But they chose -- for whatever reasons of their own -- to go along with the hysteria and promote it, rather than discourage it.
And this is true. Lincoln was likely not a real threat to the institution of slavery. He could trim off a bit of it around the edges, but he would never really be able to do anything about the main body of it given his limited power.
People in the know would have realized this, so what possible motive could they have had for seizing upon the situation to demand independence?
I always say "follow the money." Who gains? Who loses?
You and I know that the Wealthy in the South would have gained immensely from independence. They would see an immediate boom in their sales and profits. The general economy in their area would have also profited, but it would have benefited the wealthy and powerful the quickest and the most.
Who would lose? New York and surrounding areas.
More BS. Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery. He wasn't going to threaten it where it was. Probably the free states wouldn't go along with slave hunters looking to track down runaways and bring them back, but that was happening without Lincoln doing anything about it.
And a war made it legal? What part of the constitution was that under?
Presidential war powers. Try to keep up or stop playing dumb.
Citing their example, I would suggest that the precedent is to favor the dissatisfied people, not the advocate of the status quo.
Because they won. Because they convinced people that they really had been oppressed, rather than oppressors. Not every revolution, not everybody who claims they're oppressed, is ultimately justified. "Dissatisfied people," like unruly teenagers, aren't always right or justified.
Tell me, how closely have you studied the founding era? Only 1/3 of the population was truly committed to independence. Another ~ 1/3 was opposed, and the remaining 1/3 was apathetic.
Different situations. War had already begun in 1775 before independence was declared. The shooting was already going on. The Confederates, by contrast, wanted their revolution first, and then their war. They were more driving events than driven by them. The case was different in the 1770s.
You and I know that the Wealthy in the South would have gained immensely from independence. They would see an immediate boom in their sales and profits. The general economy in their area would have also profited, but it would have benefited the wealthy and powerful the quickest and the most.
Who would lose? New York and surrounding areas.
No, we don't know that. Slave owners were afraid of losing their slaves. They wanted the power that came with having their own country. But independence would have shaken things up and just who would benefit economically or what would happen to the general economy wasn't so easy to predict. Probably the rich do come out on top, but I wouldn't assume that everything would be hunky dory for the slaveowners just because they shook off the United States or that New York was doomed because half the country was gone. Maybe, maybe not.
I always say "follow the money." Who gains? Who loses?
You're pushing Marxist economic determinism, but human affairs are a lot more complicated than that.
And this is true. Lincoln was likely not a real threat to the institution of slavery. He could trim off a bit of it around the edges, but he would never really be able to do anything about the main body of it given his limited power.
Which contradicts what you were going on about before.
If that were truly Deep South Fire Eaters' driving motive, then they would necessarily have been super-eager to avoid war, which people like Jefferson Davis well knew would result in a Union blockade of Confederate ports, thus eliminating the possibility of the great economic bounty DiogenesLamp fantasizes.
And yet those Fire Eaters did not oppose Civil War, were instead super-eager to start it!
Further, a number of posters here have made a key point which DiogenesLamp refuses to grasp.
That is: in 1860 Deep South leaders were not driven by strong desires to become industrial & commercial giants like Northerners.
Just the opposite -- they considered themselves Jeffersonian Agrarians, idealizing rural self-sufficiency and independence.
Jeffersonians were not against industry per se, but they did abhor conditions which created a mass underclass of Marxist believing proletariats.
So, it was not Northern industry and commerce which Deep South Fire Eaters wanted, but rather the freedom to continue their Jeffersonian Agrarian slavery-based life-style as they had grown to know and love it.
That New York & other Northeastern cities would not lose much from Confederate independence is demonstrated by economics during the Civil War, at which time Confederate exports stopped entirely.
Northern cities rapidly found alternative sources & products, adjusted their economies and continued to prosper despite the loss of cotton & other Confederate exports.
So your arguments hold no water.