>The problem with that is that ‘any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends’ didn’t exist for the south in 1860.
Come up w/ that nice, ol’, nothing burger retort yourself?
No, it couldn’t be the onerous tax burdens (tariffs) that attempted to keep the South as the North’s ‘slave’ (no pun intended), the anti-State’s Rights of the North, the slave vs. non in the new territories (IE: ‘law’ to benefit one over the other), etc.
Ah, but there needs to be cheerleaders for the destroyer of the 9th/10th, if not the Republic itself, no? Even Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery; until they foisted the 13th on the South by coercion (pass it and become a State again, or continue to exist under the boot heel of tyranny from the North)....Much like O’Care, SO *good*, it was FORCED, for your own benefit.
No, better minds than mine have recognized the complete lack of legitimacy of the slavers rebellion - I'm just pointing it out.
No, it couldn’t be the onerous tax burdens (tariffs) that attempted to keep the South as the North’s ‘slave’ (no pun intended), the anti-State’s Rights of the North, the slave vs. non in the new territories (IE: ‘law’ to benefit one over the other), etc.
No, it wouldn't.