BUT YOU SAID disunion is not a crime if it is not done at pleasure, or if it was by mutual consent.
When Lincoln's justification for killing 600,000 Americans is juxtaposed with the words of the founders (either the DOI or the Constitution) even you reject it.
Your pretzel has reached snappage.
Yes, mutual consent and "necessity" are legitimate reasons for disunion, but "at pleasure" is not.
That's what our Founders believed.
jeffersondem: "When Lincoln's justification for killing 600,000 Americans is juxtaposed with the words of the founders (either the DOI or the Constitution) even you reject it.
Your pretzel has reached snappage."
Of course, it's the nature of Lost Causers to reject reality slapping you in the face in favor of fantasies that never were.
In this case, Lincoln did not go to war because Deep South Fire Eaters declared secession, he went to war because they provoked, started, declared and waged war on the United States.
As such, they represented an existential threat no US president could ignore.
In that, Lincoln was supported by nearly all Americans, even Democrats, though Democrats would have been satisfied with a military stalemate and negotiated peace.
As would have Lincoln, had Confederates ever proved willing.
But they weren't willing, insisted on fighting on and on, until their only peace was "Unconditional Surrender".
So the issue was never secession itself, but rather the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.