Replies

exactly

I find it interesting that Lincoln did say succession was lawful back in 1848 but then changed his mind when in power, thought we all knew he used slavery too as a political ploy to keep Europe out of the war and recognizing the confederacy.

Also what if a few states today said that is it for us we’re leaving the union. states like FL,SC,GA,TX,OK,AK,UT,LA,TN could all join and go it alone today quite easily and so what would DC do?
Send troops down here to kill again.

That would not go down too good for up north and lets face it parts of the north east is like going to another country compared to down here.

I find it interesting too that some up north will say traitors etc and yet those who fought the British were classed as traitors but because they won back then it means it was OK to leave but when you loose it is not.

All those saying we do not have a right to leave the union must also have the am view when a breakaway area wants to leave Russia or another country then. So the next time we hear there is no right then I take it those other areas have no right either because of say Russias constitution.

I find it interesting that Lincoln did say succession was lawful back in 1848

Lincoln never said that secession was lawful.

What he said was:

The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. As to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 18O3, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther. Now sir, for the purpose of obtaining the very best evidence, as to whether Texas had actually carried her revolution, to the place where the hostilities of the present war commenced, let the President answer the interrogatories, I proposed, as before mentioned, or some other similar ones

You have a right of Revolution. If you succeed in "obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people," then you, too, can not "go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

Tell me, did Nat Turner's slaves have the Constitutional right to rise up against their masters?

You have to understand non-sequitur. He is deeply enamored of Lincoln, and looks upon him almost as a deity. And his loathing of the Confederacy (and even the present-day South) is well known on FR. I do respect him for taking the time to study the subject (the War), though, as there are many who comment without having clue one about the War, and non-sequitur is certainly not ignorant. We do, however, have a profound disagreement as to the causes of the War, and it is very difficult carrying on a dialogue with him because his hatred does poke through. If he ever shelved his emotional investment (i.e., his deep hatred of the Confederacy), he would likely be an interesting adversary in a civil discussion of the issue.