Ok, fortheDeclaration, let's for the sake of discussion agree that I'm a racist (which I'm not, and for proof, my family was involved in the underground railroad in Peterboro, NY and I take GREAT offense at your accusation of be being otherwise) and let's further say that I agree with you that the South only wanted to secede because of the slavery issue. Ok, are we all in agreement now?
Let's fast forward to 2012 and 12 States want to withdraw from the compact. These 12 States hold State conventions to reflect the will of the PEOPLE (the only TRUE Sovereigns, unless of course you believe in the divine right of Kings which if you support Lincoln, you might). And lets say a super-majority of the PEOPLE decide they want their State to separate from the Union because their inalienable right to let's say property was being infringed or they BELIEVED it was being infringed. Maybe Washington DC doesn't.
They've tried every other peaceful means for redress and have been met with opposition from the national government. And the assembled legislators of these 12 States meet and solemnly agree to withdraw and forward correspondence to that fact to Washington DC.
Does President fortheDeclaration:
A. Assent to the wishes of the PEOPLE of those States and begin proposing and establishing embassies in this new country?
B. Begin war preparations against this new country with the intention of slaughtering as many PEOPLE of those States as necessary to compel them to stay in the Union AGAINST THEIR WILL? Even though the Declaration of Independence is what caused a separation between the PEOPLE of the 13 Colonies operating through their assemblies in 1776?
My suspicion is you will embarrassingly answer "B" and join the other tyrants of history who stopped people who sought freedom but could not attain it because of the likes of Lincolnian thinkers like yourself. And also because you contend that a State has no right to secede even though this was fully understood by the Ratifiers (read below). Your defense of your position is a video lecture you saw from Hillsdale College. Perhaps you should read Professor Kevin Gutzman's new book "James Madison and the making of America" before you write so authoritatively about what Madison did or did not believe about the Union and the Compact.
This is not hard fortheDeclaration, you are making it so. You have no facts to support your contention that Lincoln had Article II authority to wage war against the South. So you do your best to try and weave together an argument, again, buttressed with ZERO, ZIP, NADA Article II delegations of authority to do what he did. By the way, your latest post was very Lincolnian, very similar to his 1st Inaugural Address, you have read that I assume. He wasn't all that anti-slavery was he? And wow, his elucidation of contracts was well, stunning.
And again, I contend, you would be willing to slaughter me and my family if we lived in a State that joined other States and decided to withdraw from the Compact.
By the way, a little tidbit of history the guys at Hillsdale left out, are the ratification documents of NY, Rhode Island and Virginia. You've read them I assume and by the way, if not, they're VERY easy to find. Here's paragraph 4 of NY's (it will give you a little insight into how the Ratifiers thought about that quaint silly and anti-Lincolnian notion of secession):
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Did you catch that first line? That the powers of government may be resumed...? They obviously weren't referring to the yet to be created new federal government were they? Hmmmm...so who could they have been referring to. I'll let you answer that.
Finally, I am not a "neo-confederate" friend. Though I am impressed it took you a while to get to name calling. Most people who lose arguments on FACTS jump to this much earlier. So I'm impressed you had the self-control. I don't think I'll benefit from that if I'm with a State that is seeking to secede...I continue to believe you'll shoot me.
That said, I am however:
1. Pro-Inalienable Rights
2. Pro-authority (Lincoln had none)
3. Pro-Rule of Law (Lincoln not so much)
4. Pro-habeas corpus (Lincoln not so much)
5. Pro-first Amendment (Lincoln not so much)
6. Pro-self governance (Lincoln not so much)
These are the FACTS and they cannot be disputed. That you don't like them tells me that you're probably a big-government conservative and no friend of Jefferson OR Madison (or Henry, Mason, Lee etc).
The States had agreed to follow the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows States to leave the Union.
Now, what you are is a anarchist, as well as the rest of the neo-confederate cabel.
I never said you were a racist, but nice red herring.
The PEOPLE are the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
So, why don't you get your little group of malcontents together and hold a State convention and see how constitutional it would be to withdraw from the Union?
If it is constitutional try and do it!
Yes, I am a Lincoln man, a far greater man that that traitor Jefferson Davis.