[GOPcapitalist]

You would like your cake and to eat it too. But it doesn't work that way.

No capitan. I am perfectly content in maintaining that Lincoln's laws did not apply over the confederacy, in which case all of his atrocities may be considered acts of agression that fall under the scope of international law.

Lincoln was correct to attempt to assert and reestablish legal control over the insurrectionist states.

That is your opinion. It is not a sound principle of right and wrong though.

[capitan_refugio]

"No capitan. I am perfectly content in maintaining that Lincoln's laws did not apply over the confederacy, in which case all of his atrocities may be considered acts of agression that fall under the scope of international law."

If that is the case, then you recognize the correctness of Wheaton's commentary concerning the laws of war.

CR - "Lincoln was correct to attempt to assert and reestablish legal control over the insurrectionist states."

GOPc - "That is your opinion. It is not a sound principle of right and wrong though."

That is my conclusion, based on the facts. I believe, as Lincoln, that it was imperative to preserve the Union, by all reasonable force as needed. I believe that a successful secession by the South would have led to the balkanization of North America, and a future so fraught with misery and war, that the suffering in the WBTS would have seemed like a holiday vacation. I believe it is a good thing the South got whooped, as an object lesson to those who would try it again (i.e. MEChA, Aryan Nation, etc.). I believe it is a good thing that slavery was outlawed. I believe it is a good thing that most southerners, such as Robert E. Lee, were peacefully reintegrated into society, having given up on the failed idea of secession.