Probably. If it was an absolute outcome THEN it would be a "non-issue".
And I have read Lemmon. But more to the point it is not I who is relying on it. It is stipulated as such in the text I mentioned earlier.
"So...what were they really rebelling over? Care to hazard a guess on that?"
There is such a stew of reasons -from both sides- there's something for everyone to believe war was justified. I'm much more interested in the legal wrangling that led up to the shooting. Once that started all legal matters are moot.
Shouldn't actions be predicated on what was known and not what was imagined? The court to date had upheld the Fugitive Slave laws and had struck down personal liberty laws on every occasion. There was no reason to believe that was about to change.
And I have read Lemmon. But more to the point it is not I who is relying on it. It is stipulated as such in the text I mentioned earlier.
But again, had Lemmon reached the Supreme Court it would have been overturned just like all the other cases. Rebelling with "someday the court might rule against me" as the reason makes no sense.
There is such a stew of reasons -from both sides- there's something for everyone to believe war was justified. I'm much more interested in the legal wrangling that led up to the shooting. Once that started all legal matters are moot.
There was but one real reason - Lincoln and the Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery and the Southern states believed slavery should be open throughout all the territories.