Your analogy is way off the mark. What a state does within it's borders is its own business. But when a state's actions impact the interests and well being of those in other states then the people in those states should have a say in the matter. Yet you would deny them that.
No, I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about the Territories and their undeveloped assets. Other than a lot of oil and some coal and a little bit of iron, lignite, and bauxite, the mineral resources of the South are exiguous. But be that as it may, of course the South was taking their own territory and resources with them -- they owned it.
What's your's is your's and what everybody else has is your's too? Is that it? Well then if the wealth of the territories in on the table, then the wealth of the seceding states should be on the table, too. The south was denying the rest of the country the wealth from cotton and tobacco and rice and the rest. The south owned whatever property it had within it's borders. That ownership did not extend to federal facilities. And just because the south was walking away from whatever benefit the country as a whole might gain from the territories did not give it the right to take whatever else it wanted without negotiation.
You had made an equity point with reference to community property -- United States property -- in the South and the national debt. I replied clearly to that point, that it was negotiable, but Lincoln would not negotiate.
No, you ignored the fact that it was a vague offer made after the south had seized property and repudiated obligations. What person in their right mind would consider that a serious offer? You take, and then offer to pay for? You leave, and then offer to settle obligations? Would you handle your personal transactions in such a manner?
All of that was subject to some sort of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, eventually.
When? A year after the fact? Ten years afer the fact? Whenever the south felt like it? Again, the proper time for negotiation was before the southern states left and not after.
They didn't "take what they wanted" in "community property", they conscribed the federal government facilities to the State governments.
They seized federal property illegally. Why not call it what it was? Theft.
I get the impression that you are trying -- as the Unionists did in 1861 -- to work up a good head of indignant steam and use it to justify the national equivalent of going over to your ex-wife's house and shooting her because you found out she'd taken the family flatware.
This from the man who has been in an arm waving, mouth foaming, name calling rage all afternoon? And let me point out that in addition to stealing the family flatware, the spouse took a shot at us on the way out the door.
The issue isn't the property, is it? It's the fact that they left.
No, it's the fact that they tried to leave illegally.
And now you have to justify beating them to a bloody pulp for having inconvenienced you by thinking they were free.
If you want to use the fight anaolgy, then if you're going to throw the first punch you can't count on the other guy throwing a punch in return. And when you pick a fight, don't be disappointed if you lose. Even if it results in your being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Well, Lincoln picked the fight, and very skilfully. He needed the fight, he got the fight. Good job of starting a war.
Absolutely I would deny them that, and you are way out of line suggesting that other people should have a veto over what my State does -- no way does Louisiana get to vote in Texas elections, even if Mexico does.
These Mexican immigrants are going to run a clinic for us on the folly of your point of view.