Well...except for the small matters of;
1) No mention of perpetual Union or authority concerning the matter of secession in the Constitution, and
2) Any State was equal to any other State, but ALL were superior to the general government, as that government was a creation OF the States.
That which you create, you have a right to control. It's been there since Blackstone.
-----
But Lincoln also made it clear that be believed the Taney court was wrong when it ruled that Congress could not legislate slavery in the territories.
Again, it's that creation thing. While it's true the general government has the authority to legislate for the territories, there was no legislative authority over the legality of slavery, so it could not make territorial laws more restrictive than those in the States. It was for the People to decide.
2. [I]t is the opinion of the Court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void;
Dred Scott v. Sandford
-----
If Lincoln couldn't interfere with slavery in the states where it existed then how could he collapse their economy?
By using the morality of slavery as a springboard to force an involuntary Union of States to the detriment of those in the South where slavery existed, perhaps?
-----
The decision for war certainly didn't work out for the South now did it?
Well, with this giant stinking carcass of a pig that Congress has hanging over our heads, I'd have to say we all lost.
-----
BTW: Letter to Erastus Corning and Others
Abraham Lincoln June 12, 1863 Executive Mansion, Washington
The resolutions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and I have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue, that certain military arrests and proceedings following them for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the constitution, the definition of treason,
If you show me your definition of Constitutional treason, I'll show you mine. :-)
That's assuming that the present day is worse than what it would be had the secessionists pulled it off. Had the CSA survived, I think it was inevitable we would have had a true bloody fight to the death before now, but even at the best we'd now have two overbearing central governments in Richmond and Washington, both armed to the teeth and eyeing the other suspiciously. Considering that the men behind secession were determined to go down fighting to the last mudsill, I think the nation got through the ordeal pretty well.
Which means that secession should be allowed, and the only question is what manner it should be accomplished.
2) Any State was equal to any other State, but ALL were superior to the general government, as that government was a creation OF the States.
True, which means that your view that only the seceding states had any rights or interests to be protected and that the remaining states had no say in the matter is rather ridiculous. It puts a whole Orwellian 'all states are equal but some states are more equal than others' spin on your arguement.
That which you create, you have a right to control.
If true, then with the exception of the original 13 Congress created every state that was admitted post 1787. So they have the right to control them?
Again, it's that creation thing. While it's true the general government has the authority to legislate for the territories, there was no legislative authority over the legality of slavery, so it could not make territorial laws more restrictive than those in the States.
Why not? Article IV says "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." There is nothing sacrosanct about slavery. The majority of the states had banned it within their borders buthe time of the rebellion. And while I agree with you that Congress couldn't touch it in states that still chose to legalize it, there is no reason why Congress couldn't regulate it or outlaw it in the territories they directly controlled. Many people certainly felt that way, Chief Justice Taney and his miserable Scott decision notwithstanding. So you can be assured that had the rebellion not broken out, legal challenges to Scott v. Sanford would have been forthcoming from many directions.
By using the morality of slavery as a springboard to force an involuntary Union of States to the detriment of those in the South where slavery existed, perhaps?
The morality of slavery had been discussed worldwide for decades prior to Lincoln's election, and the South had shrugged its shoulders and turned its back on all of it. Southerners did not brook any interference from outsiders in its beloved and cherished "peculiar institution". Lincoln could have raged against slaver and I can't see where he could have forced the South into an involuntary anything. Short of the South launching and then losing their rebellion, that is.
Well, with this giant stinking carcass of a pig that Congress has hanging over our heads, I'd have to say we all lost.
Which you do so love to lay at Lincoln's feet while ignoring all the work done by both Roosevelts, Wilson, Johnson, Jackson, Jefferson, and all the presidents before and after him that were more responsible for the mess of a government we now have. You all love to believe that your blessed confederacy would have grown into some kind of small-government nirvana, and the only way to do that is to completely ignore the precedent that Jefferson Davis set through his actions, and to insanely assume that none of his successors would have followed his path.
Mine is "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." What's your's?
And since Davis, Lee, et.al. certainly waged war against the United States then I suspect you agree that they were indeed a traitorous lot.
Thomas Jefferson thought differently when he wrote the Northwest Ordinance, and George Washington thought differently when he signed legislation enforcing the slavery ban in it. But what did they know, huh?