No I don't. I regard them as exercising a God given right and in a lawful manner. I am merely asking you to evaluate Lincoln's actions from *YOUR* perspective that they were criminals.
How does a President legally turn over a man to criminals?
So long as you've totally confessed & proclaimed Confederates to be lawless rebels, then I'm willing to consider allegations that the Union itself did not always follow the letter or spirit of its own laws.
So why does the Union get to pick and choose? Is that not what the Confederates did in your opinion? If the Union is going to try to enforce constitutional law on the Confederates, why is it too much to expect them to enforce constitutional law on themselves as well?
Sounds like more than one side was doing some rebelling.
I think it's significant that virtually none of what Lost Causers claim was soooooo "illegal" in Lincoln's actions was ever challenged in court or in Congress.
Why did Roberts flip on Obamacare?
Sure, I "get" that you wish to have your cake and eat it too.
But, so long as you hold up Confederates as being lawful then it's entirely legit to compare & contrast their "lawful" actions to those of Lincoln's Republicans.
For example, you make much of Lincoln's alleged "illegal" arrests of Union "copperheads", but, on inspection it turns out Jefferson Davis had proportionately just as many Southern Unionists arrested & held without trial.
So, if that's legal for Confederates, why is it suddenly illegal when the Union did it?
DiogenesLamp: "How does a President legally turn over a man to criminals? "
You might ask President Obama about that.
I don't remember anyone challenging his legal authority to do it for Bergdahl.
DiogenesLamp: "So why does the Union get to pick and choose?
Is that not what the Confederates did in your opinion?
If the Union is going to try to enforce constitutional law on the Confederates, why is it too much to expect them to enforce constitutional law on themselves as well?"
Sure, like any good mob lawyer, you hope to get your client released on some technicality of government misbehavior.
I "get" that,
But you also insist your client is an innocent law-abiding citizen which means that anything illegal you client did should justify similar actions by the United States.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
DiogenesLamp: "Why did Roberts flip on Obamacare?"
Agreed, we do have examples of poor SCOTUS rulings.
On the other hand, virtually none of the issues you claim represent Union "illegal" actions were ever even taken to court for rulings one way or the other.
That tells me your ideas on this subject are pure fantasy, as with so much else.