"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, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
And what of historical secession rights? 1803, Senator Plumer of New Hampshire: "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government of their own, and the sooner they do this, the better"
That same year, Sen. Pickering of Mass.: "I rather anticipate a new Confederacy exempt from the corrupt influence of th the aristocratic Democrats of the South"
Move forward a bit to 1814, and this time do yourself a favor - research a little thing called the Hartford Convention and see what the yankees tried to do there.
Next try 1828-32, research a man named John C. Calhoun and see what some of his followers wanted to do regarding the political future of north carolina
On to 1845 and a man named John Quincy Adams regarding the annexation of Texas.
What did they all have in common? That's right. Secession "crises." Times in our nation's history where various sides, north and south alike, have called openly for secession or bordered very close.
Oh, and more on Sumter. Here's an interesting little side note on the "supply ships" sent by Lincoln, as recorded by none other than General Winfield Scott in a directive to another officer: "He is charged by high authority here with command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose oobject is to reinforce Fort Sumter"
The ships of war Scott spoke of were the "steamers" Harriet Lane, Pawnee, and Pocahontas carrying "provisions" for the fort, or so said the president.
"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, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Now watch out; you're about to join the ranks of Twodees, Billbears, Stand Watier and others. There is simply no way to twist Lincoln's words into a support for legal, unilateral state secession.
Whatever credibility you have will go right out the window if you continue to maintain that Lincoln supported legal, unilateral state secession. There is not one scintilla of evidence that he supported such an "unjust and absurd position", to use his very words that are readily available in the record. No one, certainly not me- and certainly not Lincoln, would deny a right of revolution, with or without just cause. I mean after all, (and this is what Lincoln is referring to in this favorite quote of the legal secession crowd) is revolution.
Now, if we want to agree that 'secession' and 'revolution' are exact synonymns, then we are in agreement. The slave holder/secessionists went outside United States law to secede and attempt to establish a new nation. If you agree with that position, then we have no conflict on this point
Lincoln often said that all his political ideas sprag from the Declaration of Independence--especially that part about all men being created equal.
So it is not much of a stretch for him to support a right of revolution. But old Lincoln was a pretty canny lawter, don't you know. And no way was he going to allow the law to be flagrantly disregarded when he had just sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Lastly, compare honestly Lincolns words on 7/4/61 and see, honestly now, if there is anything inconsistant with his 1848 (Lincoln was a congressman from 1848-50)statement and 1861:
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?
Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...
If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
And there is nothing inconsistant between this passage and the one you tout. I'm sorry, but if you don't want to show extreme bias, you'll have to readjust your position.
Walt