I grow weary of the people who say this like it's a simple fact that any fool can see. Show me the facts.
See if any of this makes sense.
"The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice...
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."
A. Lincoln, 7/4/01
Walt
... 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 vicious Southerners wanted to negotiate a financial settlement with the North. THEY recognized their obligations. Lincoln essentially ignored a Southern delegation, led by Martin Crawford, sent to Washington for the purpose of negotiating some sort of settlement. I guess they just forgot to tell us about this in our high school history classes. And "Honest Abe" pretends to know nothing of it.
If we ... allow the seceders to go in peace ...
Can't allow anyone to go in peace could we? What a foolish idea!
If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union ...
Translation: Since we really don't have much of a leg to stand on about a State voluntarily leaving the Union, let's change the subject and discuss whether we could force a State OUT of the Union.
A. Lincoln, 7/4/01
01?
You really need to read more to supplement the brain washing you got in high school. I suggest Perkin's Northern Editorials on Secession or Fremantle's Three Months in the Southern States.
ML/NJ (who never lived south of the 40th parallel, and reverently memorized the Gettysburg address as a teen.)
I will only post one time and then only to say that slavery was an evil, an evil that might have been resolved by statesmanship which was entirely lacking in the North and in short supply in the south.
Had a means of emancipating existing slaves and drawing labor (cheap Irishmen such as flooded the north) to the agrarian south, had the north not used southern taxes to fatten the then dominant half of the country, and had the north not desired to finally crush it's counter balancing opposite (and its very profitable export trade); we'd be in a hell of a lot better shape today.
Davis was a nut case also, Lincoln was the imperial dictator Washington sought to avoid, and 136 years of ongoing propaganda have left all of us with an utterly useless lesson in history.
"Honest" Abe, huh? You forgot to mention that a few years earlier Massachusetts threatened to seceed, and there was no great debate (that I am aware of) regarding the "legality". Double-standards have always been the halmarks of liberalism.