Replies

For most of early 1860 the Upper South and Border states were on the fence with regard to secession. Had they remainined in the Union it is fairly obvious that the rump Confederacy would not have been large enough to be viable in the long run, as the chance of future conflict between it and the US approaches 100%.

Viable? Viable in what manner? Too small to have Republican government?

The Confederacy, IMHO, initiated war to force Upper South and Border states to pick a side.

The Confederacy initiated war to repel invaders who intended to maintain forts and collect taxes in their midst. The Founders and their compatriots would not permit the King of England to maintain forts and collect taxes from their people after the Declaration of Indepedence. To deny the right of the Southerners to repel invasion is to deny the concept of sovereignty in government.

They were unwilling to join Lincoln in pissing upon the Declaration of Indepedence's concept of political sovereignty.

This is an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. All Americans of the time believed in the principles of the D of I. Some claimed it gave states the right to secede. Others strongly disagreed. Asserting a claim does not constitute proof or even evidence.

Some people are disengenuous and some are not. Here's the what the Declaration of Independence has to say on the matter, do you agree with it or not?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What do you think the Founders meant, if not secession, when they wrote, "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"?

Whenever two groups strongly hold mutually exclusive positions, the conflict can be resolved in only two ways: mutual agreement to accept the ruling of some authority (in our system usually that of a court), or by violence.

You left out the third choice. They can go their seperate ways. Sovereignty is the method by which political disagreements can be exercised with the consent of the governed. The effort to consolidate political power and control is what exacerbates political difference. It provides no room for alternatives. I would prefer 50 Republics tied together in mutual defense and free trade to one consolidated democracy where effort to curry political favor feeds an endless expanse of socialism that my own State's political tendencies reject and could avoid if not for that bastard Lincoln.

"They were unwilling to join Lincoln in pissing upon the Declaration of Indepedence's (sic) concept of political sovereignty."

You got that wrong. It was John Calhoun who denied the fundamental truths of the Declaration, and who stated that Jefferson never meant to include free or enslaved Africans in the phrase, "All men are created equal." Lincoln correctly recognized the difference between natural, revolutionary rights - afforded all people - and the so-called, bastard states' rights.

I would prefer 50 Republics tied together in mutual defense and free trade to one consolidated democracy where effort to curry political favor feeds an endless expanse of socialism

You ignore the much more likely scenario of 50 republics doing an imitation of the Italian states during the Renaissance or the European nations of the 17th and 18th centuries.

You left out the third choice. They can go their seperate ways.

The problem is that the entire point at issue was whether the people of the southern states constituted a separate "people" with the right to secede as stated by the D of I. Surely you will agree that not any random group of people constitute a "people" with the right to withdraw from the government. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that any two people have the right to reject their governments authority and rebel against it, as they decided that the two of them constitute a "people." Therefore, the two of us probably agree that any random two persons are not a "people," but that the American colonists were.

Most southerners believed they were a "people." Unionists, most of whom lived in the North or border states, strongly disagreed, believing that the people of all the United States constituted a single "people." There really was no way to settle this particular disagreement without violence.