[billbears]

So, what then is so sacred about the American union? Why can't a substantial segment of the citizenry separate from the country and go its own way? These are important questions when we consider that Lincoln supported secession on flimsier grounds than does the Declaration of Independence. It requires "a long train of abuses and usurpations," which reduce a government to "absolute despotism," before secession is justified.

These are the words of your fellow worshipper Machan. Even he accepts that the future tyrant 16th president supported secession.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not only was there no "long train of abuses" against the South there wasn't even a SHORT train. How could there have been when the government had been controlled by Southerners almost the entire time since the founding. Anyone believing such a lie is not familiar with American history which clearly shows the tendency to surrender to the Slavers on almost every issue.

[metesky]

Still disingenuous...

Same speech, different interpretation:

Lincoln is not invoking a constitutional right to destroy the Union but the natural right of revolution, an inalienable right clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln never denied this right. As he said in his First Inaugural of 1861. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." But the people's right to revolution is in tension with the president's constitutional "duty…to administer the present government, as it came into his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor."

You already read that but chose to ignore it.