Non-Sequitur,
I have family who’s homes were burned by snivelling little yankees with their torches, since they couldn’t beat us fair and square.
In response to these and other arguments, I pose the following questions to those who defend what Lincoln and the North did to the South:
Does anyone believe that states like North Carolina and Virginia—two of the original thirteen states of the Constitution—would have ratified the Constitution if they had believed they would be forbidden from ever leaving the Union even if they felt they needed to do so? Does anyone believe that any of the original thirteen states would have ratified the Constitution if they had been told that, no matter what, they could never secede from the Union unless they managed to fight their way out?
If you’re saying secession is only acceptable if the seceding states can fight their way out, isn’t this nothing but mob rule, tyranny by the stronger, dictatorship by majority, might makes right?
Wasn’t Lincoln’s own Secretary of State, William Seward, correct when he said, a few months before the North invaded the South, “It would be contrary to the spirit of the American Government to use force to subjugate the South”?
You lost. Deal with it.
There is no reason why the Southern states couldn't have seceded. They just couldn't do it unilaterally. Secession, as James Madison wrote, requires the consent of both the affected parties - those leaving and those staying.
Wasn’t Lincoln’s own Secretary of State, William Seward, correct when he said, a few months before the North invaded the South, “It would be contrary to the spirit of the American Government to use force to subjugate the South”?
If he said that it was before the South resorted to war to achieve their aims.
What was the victorious Confederate army doing when your folks got their house burnt down? Seems to me those southern heroes should have kept the defeated Yankees from burning down houses. I wouldn't blame the Yankees just because the CSA was derelict in their duty.