I am sorry but I am not following your logic or conclusions. Are you using absurdity to support your name, non-sequitur?
The South did secede peacefully- Lincoln made it hell, which you seem to think is a sacred right.
Jefferson said rebellion from time to time, including blood shed, would be useful and necessary to restrain the power of government. I hope we both pray that our current state of affairs does not come to that. But if you think that is more “sacred” than peaceful secession I could be wrong.
I think we are on the same side but have a different understanding of history. We must understand history accurately for to assume the goodness of men is dangerous- whatever kind of god one has been made into.
Here is an accurate definition of rebellion and my appeal:
This is the meaning of Revolution. It is a coming full circle- a revolution- to reset the Covenant that was made between the people and our government to whom our power is lent. Read carefully this definition of revolution by Russell Kirk in Rights and Duties, Spence Publishing Company, 1997, page 48:
“We need first to examine definitions of that ambiguous word revolution. The signification of the word was altered greatly by the catastrophic event so the French Revolution, commencing only two years after the Constitutional Convention of the United States. Before the French explosion of 1789 and 1790, revolution commonly was employed to describe a round of periodic or recurrent changes or events- that is, the process of coming full cycle, or the act of rolling back or moving back, a return to a point previously occupied.”
I pray this current revolution will not require arms. In order for that to be possible every Patriot across this nation must join in rolling back our government to the limits, laws, and liberties established in the Constitution. It will require not a majority of people, but the whole of Patriots who understand history, the nature of man, and the Power of God.
Can we at least agree on that?
Then let me try again. The claim was made by you that in his 1848 speech Lincoln was supporting secession when it is obvious he was not. Secession and rebellion are not synonymous, one is a legal course of action and the other is not.
The South did secede peacefully- Lincoln made it hell, which you seem to think is a sacred right.
All governments have the right to suppress rebellion and the U.S. is no different. The power to do so is contained in Article I, Section 8. But any hell that may have fallen on the South was the result of their choosing war to further their aims. No hostile acts had been taken towards the South prior to their bombardment of Sumter. War was their choice, hell was their reward for that choice.
Jefferson said rebellion from time to time, including blood shed, would be useful and necessary to restrain the power of government. I hope we both pray that our current state of affairs does not come to that. But if you think that is more “sacred” than peaceful secession I could be wrong.
As Lincoln pointed out any people any where have the right to rebel. It is not my place to pass judgement on their motivations any more than it would be their place to pass judgement on mine.
Can we at least agree on that?
We can.