Sorry, this got lost in all the trash from Non & Mac.
I, of course, don't have to point to the abuse which was so egregious that it was equivalent to the dissolution of the entire constitution. The states themselves did that. Was it hinged on slavery? For the most part, yes. I won't disagree with that. Of course, that's not the point.
It is not my place to determine the level of abuse which is tolerable to someone else. Just because someone, somewhere, might enjoy being strapped to a chair and having their toes smashed with a hammer doesn't mean that I wouldn't find that to be intolerable abuse. Lincoln campaigned as the quintissential(sp?) sectional candidate - he was going to use a tarrif scheme to protect Northern interests and make the South pay. He was going to keep them out of the shared territory. The list goes on.
Be it for better or worse, bad people are protected by the law just as good people are. The Unionists on this thread would like to make it out that Southerners got everything they deserved because they were bad people, and so Lincoln & the republicans were justified in acting outside the bounds of the law.
Maybe they deserved their fate in a sort of "heaven and hell" big-picture scheme, but that's not how the law works here on planet Earth, at least not outside Cuba.
...and yet YOU managed to make about NINE posts on THIS thread before making your pathetic, non-responsive, poorly drawn answer to the original question. ISN'T that right professor?
But that's par for the course for you gray diaper babies, isn't it? When you're cornered or getting you butt whipped in a debate, you hunker down and post the Tenth amendment over and over emphasizing different parts of it, or you disappear in the ether for a few days until the conversation has moved on, then make these type of pathetic responses.
Fare il grande from Professor Cacasodo...