The essential legal problem with Lincoln's view of the Union is that it is an hereditary contract that binds third parties (non-signatories) and cannot be broken even in the event of non-compliance by one of the contracting parties (i.e. the federal government). The other word for such a contractual arrangement is slavery.
I agree entirely about George III.
The sovereigns who had been deposed were generally the most morally upright of their respective lines -- Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II -- thus proving that nice guys finish last.
Nobody ever messed with Vlad the Impaler.
I think that's exactly right, and I wrote a little rant on that subject some time ago. It is especially clear with the Russians, as you see how the liberals repaid the "Tsar Liberator" and all this accomplished was for the conservatives around Alexander III to say, "See, Nicholas I was right, we can't bargain with these people, we can't trust them, all we can do is stand them up against a wall".
There were few places in the *world* with greater freedom and prosperity in the early 1700's than the British North American colonies. They ran their own business for the most part, paid almost no taxes at all, yet still enjoyed the benefits of British trade, military protection and 'the rights of free Englishmen'. But, I see I'm talking to a "Hessian" so I'm really preaching to the choir...
We just have to be careful about this sort of talk about Lincoln (or mentioning much of what the man himself said) otherwise we shall be burned for heresy against the "greatest" of America's secular pantheon of gods.