[Hemingway's Ghost]

It is in our acceptance of slavery and even protecting it with the creation of the nation.

Indeed.

Locke's defense of slavery is the one gaping "WTF?" moment in the Second Treatise. Likewise, Founders really screwed over subsequent generations of Americans by failing to resolve this issue when the nation was founded. Granted, I understand the realpolitik of why this happened, but the end result was not good.

I call myself a libertarian, and I fully subscribe to the notion that states had (and have) a "right" to secede from the Union. But I also cannot square in my own mind the righteousness of states seceding from the Union in order to perpetuate the power of allowing humans to own other human beings.

[GilesB]

Their right to secede can and should be defended by constitutionalists and libertarians. The reason for their seceding cannot be defended by any thinking libertarian.

Disagree with why you’re seceding, but defend your right to secede. They are two separate issues.

SO - the question I have is regarding Lincoln - was he wrong to disallow secession? Or was he right to use the power at his disposal to end slavery? What should Lincoln have done, given the choices with which he was faced?

[Ditto]

I call myself a libertarian, and I fully subscribe to the notion that states had (and have) a "right" to secede from the Union.

Unilaterally? They can just take their ball and go home and to hell with the other partners to the national contract we call the Constitution?

Do states have responsibilities to other states?