Just because you rebel doesn't make your cause righteous, or guarantee that it will succeed.
Not on the Union side it wasn't.
The United States did not rebel. It put down a rebellion. The distinction appears lost on you.
As I have mentioned to you before, A D@mn I do not give about WHY one people wish to disassociate themselves from another, I simply believe that forced association is wrong.
Except that as you've said before, an individual doesn't have that right, my block doesn't have that right, the Lion's Club doesn't have that right. It's only a right, as far as I understand your position, that only comes at some level of "the people" which you consistently appear to be unable or unwilling to define.
! It wasn't the SLAVERY that Washington D.C. found unacceptable, it was the DEFIANCE that Washington D.C. could not tolerate. (same as now.)
It was rebellion, beginning with the shelling of a United States Army fort, that Washington found unacceptable. Are you saying they should have? Are you aware that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power to suppress insurrections?
So why the F**k do you keep going on and on and on about slavery, when you keep inadvertently admitting that Slavery wasn't the reason Washington D.C. ordered armies into those states?
Inadvertently? I've said it outright, over and over, and you keep acting like you've caught me in something. As for why slavery keeps coming up as an issue in these discussions, it's because it's the entire rationale that the southern states gave for their actions, as I've abundantly demonstrated. Like in Mississippi's declaration "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." THAT'S why these discussions always talk about slavery. Sorry that that's a problem for you.
Perhaps you should read it again.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
or guarantee that it will succeed.
And that is true. Sometimes the tyrants are stronger than those who would be free of them.
The United States did not rebel. It put down a rebellion. The distinction appears lost on you.
Again, you think you are smart, but you obviously are not. The document which FOUNDED this nation was the Declaration of Independence.
The UNION most certainly did REBEL against those principles listed therein. They had no RIGHT to keep other people under their rule against their will. So says the Declaration. So says the foundation of our government.
Except that as you've said before, an individual doesn't have that right, ...
I am not going to humor your childish argument that 11 states with a combined population five times bigger than all 13 colonies in 1776, was not sufficient to demand self determination. Sell this bullshit waste of time to someone stupid enough to give it credence.
You make me think your some sort of idiot for even suggesting that argument. Are you really that desperate that you need such a straw to grasp at?
It was rebellion, beginning with the shelling of a United States Army fort, that Washington found unacceptable. Are you saying they should have?
The continued placement of Federal troops in the territory of a people who clearly have formed another nation and do not want them there is a deliberate provocation in and of itself.
I think the Confederates would have been better off shelving their pride and waiting them out, but they didn't. I think the Union should have responded, but not with an Invasion plan.
Are you aware that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power to suppress insurrections?
11 states seeking self determination is not an insurrection.
As for why slavery keeps coming up as an issue in these discussions, it's because it's the entire rationale that the southern states gave for their actions, as I've abundantly demonstrated.
And I guess you are just simple minded. I and others are certainly not bringing up this point, YOU ARE. You keep using it to IGNORE the more significant point that this aspect is irrelevant to the reasons the Union invaded.
I don't give a f**k if they seceded because they didn't like Clam Chowder, their reasons for wanting a divorce do not have anything to do with why the Husband d@mn near beat his wife to death for trying to leave him.
A wife doesn't have to have a good reason, a wife can have any reason she d@mn well pleases, and a Husband has no right to force her to stay.
"Yeah, I beat my wife to sh*t, but she had it coming. She tried to leave me, but she was a dope smoker, so I had every right to beat the sh*t out of her. "
Substitute "Union" for "Husband", "Confederacy" for "Wife", and "Slavery" for "Dope Smoking", and the analogy is exactly correct.
You are trying to divert attention from the fact that your side FORCED people to remain under someone's else's control against their will, but it was okay, because they did bad things. Things to which we didn't object until we needed to moralize about why we beat the shit out of them.
You won't shut up about "Slavery" because that is the balm you use to salve your guilty conscious. It is the only thing that gives you ex post facto moral superiority, because without it, your side is obviously the naked aggressors with no other argument than rule by strength.
Your argument boils down to:
"They were bad so they deserved to get beat to hell and forced back into marriage. "
You are going to get a dose of this treatment yourself before this communist insurgency is over, i'll wager.