That is an interesting comment.
Let's take a look at my post 1154 (in its entirety) where Lincoln's 1848 statement was introduced.
“It is not just me saying “consent of the governed.” Just a few years before Lincoln invaded the South, some really famous people up North were saying this: ‘Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.’”
You contend my juxtaposing “consent of the governed” with Lincoln's “sacred right” to revolutionize is ridiculous. As if, Lincoln was going on record as repudiating the DOI - or Lincoln's sacred right to revolutionize was something totally different than what the founding fathers did.
Somehow you have gotten on the wrong end of the argument again. You need to walk back your statement as quickly as you can.
More nonsense.
Note in my post #1163 above I listed three explanations but left off the most obvious point, which Lincoln himself gave publicly:
…"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' "