Let's get back to this for a moment. You said, "The centralized federalism desired by Lincoln..." was a stronger reason for rebellion than total lack of any representation in government. Can you specify exactly what it was that Lincoln was espousing that made the Southern actions necessary? I've read the Republican party platform. I've read Lincoln's speeches. And I'm not sure what it is that trumped 'no taxation without representation'.
the union was not & is not "indivisible".
the south had every right to leave the union, when faced with the TYRANNY of the northern financial/social/industrial elites and the "looming dictatorship" of lincoln & his merry band of thugs/criminals/cheap, scheming, politicans & south-HATERS.
unless you can PROVE that ANY of the individual states EVER ceded their RIGHT to depart the union "on their own motion" (for any/no reason), your position & that of the RADICAL REVISIONISTS/unionists is SILLY & as PHONY as the "one nation,indivisible ------" part of "the pledge of allegiance".
free dixie,sw
“And I’m not sure what it is that trumped ‘no taxation without representation’.”
Easy. Lincoln’s stated goals sounded the death knell of the Republic. The Constitution did not call for the national government to be pre-eminent and all-powerful. The Constitution set forth the parameters for an equal partnership between the individual states and the United States (i.e., the national government). In some respects, the Constitution established that the national government was subordinate to the states. Lincoln very avidly supported the idea that the states should be subordinate to the national government. He got his wish, and we’ve suffered ever since. Can you honestly believe that the bloated, incompetent, oppressive national government that we have today bears anything even remotely close to what the Founding Fathers intended and created? Lincoln set the stage for what we have today (and FDR and LBJ expanded on it).
Speaking of the colonies, do you realize the colonials (i.e., British subjects) had far more freedoms than what we have today? The British government in 1775 (I say 1775 because that was when the revolution really began in earnest) was nowhere near as oppressive as our national government today. Maybe it was due to logistics, as Britain was in those days so far away (no modern means of travel), though Britain had its bureaucrats and politicians and military throughout the colonies.
But, the national government is safe, mainly due to the fact the American people (as a generalization) not only have become complacent, and complicit, but they lack the will to do anything serious about their coming servitude. We are ceasing to be citizens, and are becoming subjects. Unfortunately, there is a very good chance a hardcore marxist will be elected president of the United States in November.
Don’t misunderstand me. I love my country, and I fought for her and would gladly do so again. But my country is NOT the government! Bill Clinton said there was no distinction between the country and its government, but that was spoken like the true totalitarian socialist he was and is. There is a huge difference between one’s country and one’s government. My America is the Constitution and the dream of liberty it established. When I was in the Air Force during Vietnam the oath I took was to the Constitution, not to the Nixon Administration, or to Congress, or to any government agency. In my oath I swore to defend the Constitution and obey and follow the lawful orders of my superiors, and that went all the way to the top, and Nixon was my CIC. But my allegiance was not to Nixon. My allegiance was to my country and its Constitution. It still is.