Replies

But more important is the question: what purpose was served, or whose interests were served, by coercively preventing unilateral secession - any purpose which the federal government was ostensibly supposed to serve?

"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?

Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...

If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."

A. Lincoln, 7/4/61

The government has the right and responsibility to maintain itself against its domestic foes.

Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Walt

We are quite aware of Abraham Lincoln's opinion in the matter; it is biased and irrelevent.

"The government has the right and responsibility to maintain itself against its domestic foes."

The government is an institution, and as an institution of course its only true reason to be is its own maintainance and perpetuation. But according to its stated purpose, as a government of a democracy, its self-maintainance is not its primary responsibilty. Preservation and protection of the rights of its citizens are its primary responsibilities and those responsibilities supercede its own maintainance should the two aims conflict, as they did in 1861. But you probably can't understand that, because you seem to adher, like Lincoln, to the fascist view that the citizen is absolutely subordinate to the state.