Immunity from what? Better check your facts. Lincoln ignored the constitution several times.
Lincoln was quite willing to be disagreed with.
Hundreds of thousands died because of his "willingness".
He was quite willing to preserve slavery, and slaveowner's property interests, as long as it preserved the Union.
At least you don't subscribe to the fantasy of many hero worshipers, to your credit. He was a racist.
I think the most one could say is that it was in his power to postpone it.
Your opinion is noted. We disagree. He could have simply let them go. By the time he was out of power, it would have been a settled issue.
So the signers, having read The Federalist, were well aware of many of the implications of what they were signing.
You are making the case that the states knew they were forbidden at gunpoint from ever leaving the union and still joined? That is ridiculous IMO.
Nor does it permit it. It was a lacuna in the Constitution, and a topic over which people could honestly differ.
The constitution is nothing if not a document limiting the power of the federal government. The tenth amendment leaves the states and the people in charge of issues not covered in it. The federal government has no legitimate power to compel states to remain, Lincoln and others made it up.
And some millions gained freedom as well.
Which of course was never the point, only a consequence.
There were more Americans than just the 600,000 men who died. And the majority of those who fell went into battle quite willingly and voluntarily - as far as they were concerned their opinion definitely counted.
Please cite numbers for this assertion if you can. I am more than skeptical. Both sides used conscription extensively.
Arrest.
Better check your facts. Lincoln ignored the constitution several times.
He violated the Constitution several times, without question. But I don't think he simply ignored the Constitution - he agonized over these kinds of decisions and took them under what he perceived to be inexorable necessity, not mere whim.
Hundreds of thousands died because of his "willingness."
Hundreds of thousands died because the political opinion of the South was that disputes over slavery were worth the risk of seceding and the political opinion of the North was that secession was treasonous. Lincoln was willing to make concessions to the South to convince them not to secede - but South Carolina, sadly, never even gave him a chance.
At least you don't subscribe to the fantasy of many hero worshipers, to your credit. He was a racist.
This is true by our standards. But unlike many of his contemporaries he at least believed that blacks were people and had some (but not all) of the rights white people had. He was a moderate in his day.
He could have simply let them go. By the time he was out of power, it would have been a settled issue.
I disagree. In the matter of such issues as Fort Sumter, you are quite correct. In the matter of the border states and the unorganized territories you are wrong. Missouri, West Virginia and Kentucky would inevitably have become battlegrounds and the territories would have occasioned endless conflict. These situations were much harder to accommodate and the armies of both the USA and CSA would have been pulled into a larger war.
You are making the case that the states knew they were forbidden at gunpoint from ever leaving the union and still joined? That is ridiculous IMO.
One of the arguments that Hamilton consistently makes in the Federalist is that the power of a federal government over individual citizens rather than just over states is desirable because otherwise the enforcement of laws might create a situation where a federal government would be forced to call in some states' militias to compel cooperation.
The constitution is nothing if not a document limiting the power of the federal government. The tenth amendment leaves the states and the people in charge of issues not covered in it. The federal government has no legitimate power to compel states to remain, Lincoln and others made it up.
If the states were free to go, they why would they need an amendment that guaranteed them the freedom to legislate on matters where the Constitution was silent? If the freedom of secession was an assumption of the signatories, then there was no need of a Tenth Amendment, which negatively implies that the states are bound to submit to enumerated Federal powers. If they could leave of their own volition at any time, the Tenth Amendment would be considered patronizing, not a necessary prerequisite for ratification.
Which of course was never the point, only a consequence.
It was a motivating factor for a plurality of Northern combatants (though certainly not a majority). The main goal was the preservation of the Union and the benefits that have flowed from that continued Union have been great.
Please cite numbers for this assertion if you can. I am more than skeptical. Both sides used conscription extensively.
There are no exact statistics on this, of course.
I could certainly be wrong.