Rational argument?
How about something like: The south lost it’s “moral authority” to secede the moment those idiots in Charleston fired upon Fort Sumter.
You reap what you sow.....and the South did. The Confederates started it and the Union finished it.
"Moral authority?" That raises a very simple question, sport: should government be bound by law, or by morality?
Please feel free to answer - it's a simple question.
The Confederates started it and the Union finished it.
Actually, the Union started it. When the newly elected president met with his cabinet, all but one of his advisers suggested that he NOT resupply Fort Sumter. Mr. Lincoln ignored their advice - and almost two thirds of a million Americans died as a direct result...
Oh, really? Well, let's try analyzing your statement with a syllogism, something along the lines of,
Bob lost all "moral authority" to defend his life the moment he fired his gun at the onrushing attacker.Uh, nope. Got another?
You reap what you sow.....and the South did.
Actually, they reaped what Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams had sown: their destruction, for the enrichment of "gentlemen" of means who lived by business and industry north of Mason and Dixon's line.
The Confederates started it and the Union finished it.
No, Lincoln started it. At least, that is what his personal secretary, John G. Nicolay, believed -- and told everybody 20 years later when he wrote his own book about the commencement of the Civil War. He credited Lincoln with maturing a purpose of opening hostilities, while simultaneously appearing to thrust the onus on the South.
Lincoln betrayed the fixity of his intention to war down the South by the preparations he made elsewhere, where no forts were involved: in Missouri, for example, where Lincoln, even before taking the oath of office, caused the governor of Illinois and a serving U.S. Army officer, Nathaniel Lyons, to arm Missouri Wide Awakes from the Illinois Militia arsenal and cross the Mississippi River back into Missouri for the purpose of arresting and overthrowing the entire State government of Missouri and disarming the Missouri Militia -- which by the way is the People in arms, who are the proprietors of, and coextant with, their State. That is to say, the People are the State, not merely the State's government or some firehouse gang with guns.
Interfering with the People's control of their government is the ultimate no-no, the ultimate insult to the People's sovereignty and an assault on them. It's literal, genuine tyranny.