Replies

Further, the key point that every Lost Causer tries to obscure (and in so doing identifies themselves as Lost Causers) is that secession alone did not cause Civil War.

Did not understand. Did you mean that the Lost Causer is identified solely by his saying that secession was the only cause? I never heard that before. It is sure that the south made possible the abolition of slavery by leaving the union. Lincoln believed that slavery could not be touched where it existed as it would require a constitutional amendment. On this he was certainly correct.

As far as secession being settled in your mind, what about West Virginia? Or more to the point, do you believe that rural counties in California could separate from the liberal metropolises without the effusion of blood? Do you believe that the federal government could break up a state like California without the approval of the stinking rascals that infest the government in Sacramento?

PDParrish: "Did you mean that the Lost Causer is identified solely by his saying that secession was the only cause?
I never heard that before."

I think pretty much any Lost Causer will tell you Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter to stop secession, and will then go on to argue 1861 secessions were constitutional and legal, therefore Lincoln was in the wrong morally, constitutionally and legally.

My responses are:

Lincoln did not start war at Fort Sumter, Davis did, so the appropriate question should be: why?
Secession as practiced in 1861 was neither constitutional, legal nor moral, and was not the reason for Civil War's start.

BDParrish: "As far as secession being settled in your mind, what about West Virginia?"

West Virginia was formed according to Constitutional requirements, with mutual consent of all parties.

PDParrish: "do you believe that rural counties in California could separate from the liberal metropolises without the effusion of blood? "

Certainly, given mutual consent of all parties, including Congress.
Absent mutual consent of voters and legislatures it becomes a law enforcement issue and whether local authorities are overcome, in Lincoln's words:

"...by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law... "

Peaceful constitutionally approved secession is one thing, acts of rebellion are something else entirely.

PDParrish: " Do you believe that the federal government could break up a state like California without the approval of the stinking rascals that infest the government in Sacramento?"

Normally no, but as with West Virginia, conditions of a civil war may make the impossible possible.
What happened at the end of the Civil War was former Confederates temporarily lost their franchise to vote while former slaves gained theirs.
The results included legislatures throughout the South which ratified the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments and, in Virginia, approved the separation of West Virginia.
Congress and West Virginians also approved, hence: mutual consent.

Mutual consent is required for lawful separations.
Necessity must be a last resort and must be real, not just some snowflakes' hurt feeeeeeeeeeelings.

Lincoln believed that slavery could not be touched where it existed as it would require a constitutional amendment. On this he was certainly correct.

And then he did so on his authority alone, and in direct contravention of an explicit clause in the constitution which prevented him from doing this.

As far as secession being settled in your mind, what about West Virginia?

Another blatant violation of a very explicit constitutional clause. Yes, he and his government broke a lot of them. He even admits it in one of his letters.

So he attacked the South because they broke the unwritten Constitutional requirement to remain forever in the Union, but he broke explicit and written constitutional laws at will?

Sounds like a despot unbridled by law.