[Colonel Kangaroo]

Oh really. I guess states right was not an important issue. I guess it’s ok the the northern victory in the civil war led to the supersize federal government we have today. The fed. gov was never meant to be absolute ruler over that states. It was never meant to be as large and intrusive as it is today. What “right” did the framers have to rebel against the British crown? Sometimes the right thing to do is considered wrong at the time.

It's true that the federal government was never meant to be absolute ruler over the states. That's not what Lincoln thought either. That started to come about under Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson. But the Constitution clearly never considered the states to have unlimited sovereignty either. The 10th Amendment does not supersede the constitutional prohibition on state exercise of some features of sovereignty found in Article IV section 10.

As the Declaration of Independence states, the resort to revolution should not be undertaken hastily. The Declaration listed a long list of real grievances suffered over a long period. Anger over a political setback by a greedy group of pro-slavery politicians does not meet the standards of the Declaration.

[stainlessbanner]

Lincoln admitted the right of secession in 1848, yet no longer supported it once he became POTUS.

[slow5poh]

“Anger over a political setback by a greedy group of pro-slavery politicians does not meet the standards of the Declaration.”

That was NOT the only of primary reason for secession and you know it.