At a time when the only non-monarchy in the world was in Switzerland, what possible argument could persuade monarchists that overthrow of the King is justified?
Their response would have been "The King abused you? So? "
My choice is to work in Congress to change things. If that doesn't work, we'll negotiate a separation.
And Congress than tells you, "No. Just die already." Then what?
But simply declaring that my state is out of the country and entitled to all federal property in our borders isn't the way to go. Why is that so hard to understand?
Since the purpose of the "federal property" was the protection of the geographical areas around it, the function for which it was ceded was no longer valid. As a matter of fact I recall reading a discussion among Lincoln's cabinet of what to do with Anderson's men if the South allowed fort Sumter to be provisioned. One of them was actually afraid of the possibility their resupply mission would succeed.
The point being that they would have a bunch of men in a fort serving no useful purpose whatsoever, and it would become embarrassing.
They weren't hypocrites because they weren't flaunting any kind of moral superiority.
To the contrary. I've read plenty of letters/editorials, not necessarily from New Jersey, but from Northern "free" states, roundly condemning and criticizing anyone who hadn't seen the moral enlightenment that they themselves have grasped.
It was as if they were preaching about Gay wedding cakes or some such.
No, the arrogant smug morality protruding from the "morally superior" states was probably a very large part of why the South simply didn't want to be connected with them anymore.
And Lo and Behold, the North East is still morally preaching at us about how wicked we are as human beings for not embracing gay marriage, Muslim savages, and abortion.
Same sh*t, different century.
That is not remotely what the situation was like in 1860.
No, the arrogant smug morality protruding from the "morally superior" states was probably a very large part of why the South simply didn't want to be connected with them anymore.
As with today's Internet, you can always find somebody somewhere saying something you disapprove of. That has very little to do with the comparison you were drawing between New Jersey and South Carolina.
A society that tries to fix something is likely to be regarded by one that doesn't care to as conceited or stuck up or "morally superior," but in this case it doesn't fit the facts.
New Jerseyans weren't making a show of their superiority to anybody else. Compared to some Virginians or South Carolinians they were rather modest and unassuming.
And why penalize people for making an effort to fix something? Why let those who don't bother off the hook so easily with charges of hypocrisy against those who do?