DiogenesLamp: "I'm sorry BroJoeK, but I am not sure there is any point in attempting to argue with you.
It's like you trying to reason with a Muslim.
Everything I say is "Allah Ackbar" this, and "Allah Ackbar" that.
"It is pointless for you to attempt to reason with fanaticism like mine.
"It's a pity though, because you do seem to have some I have no knowledge of real history, only ludicrous propaganda and you might otherwise be a worthwhile person with which to engage in a discussion, but you are I am obsessed with what you I wish to believe, and contradictory evidence simply makes no impact on you me!"
I'm certain that's what you sincerely intended to say, except for clumsy finger typos. ;-)
DiogenesLamp: "But there is one point on which I think I might like to hear your opinion.
When Texas broke from Mexico (The independence of which Lincoln supported and argued was a "sacred right")
Was this "at pleasure" or not?
Never mind.
Because Lincoln supported it, i'm pretty sure you are going to say it wasn't "at pleasure", because for you to do otherwise would contradict your previous narrative the facts of history.You I will redefine whatever principles or definitions you I need to redefine so as to go along believing what you I wish to believe.
There is no objective standard to your my position, it is literally warped this way and that to attain the outcome you I desire.
(That your my "Team" were the good guys.)"
Obviously, FRiend, you are a highly confused puppy, eagerly chasing your own tail and balls of twine for amusement, rather than focusing like a beagle on real game.
But OK, I'll play along, if only for amusement.
You may not remember this (of course you don't, since actual facts of history are irrelevant to a genius like DiogenesLamp), but in 1835 when people living in what is now Texas revolted, those people were not American citizens of the USA, they were Mexicans.
Yes, Mexicans of US American descent, but citizens of Mexico.
They revolted because the government of Mexico arbitrarily revoked its federalist republic constitution of 1824 and became a military dictatorship.
Revolt was thus essentially a repeat of the colonists' revolution against King George in 1776.
That makes it the opposite of "at pleasure", I'd say, but regardless, in 1836 these were Mexicans revolting against Mexico, with no involvement of the US government.
The US did not become involved until Texas requested and the US granted it statehood in 1845.
But your issue is Lincoln's view on a "sacred right" to revolt.
Lincoln's carefully considered opinion, I'm sure, would be: of course, just as American colonists revolted against Britain, but only after Brits had first abrogated their old Charter of government and then declared and perpetrated war on Americans.
That made American revolution pure necessity, not some whimsical "at pleasure" activity.
As with all your other attempted rebuttals, you focus on the trivial, and ignore the significant point. I think i'll skip whatever else you have written, just as I skip most of what you write.