paisa: "Probably because they were going about it in an unlawful, unconstitional way."
DiogenesLamp: "And what did the constitution say about it when the US broke from the United Kingdom back in 1776?"
But Americans did not break from the UK in 1776, they merely confirmed the break declared by Britain beginning in 1774 with their abrogation of Massachusetts charter of self government and including Britain's 1775 "Proclamation of Rebellion"
Those made the US Declaration of Independence a matter of total necessity, which our Founders well understood and supported.
By contrast, no Founder approved of secession "at pleasure", meaning without material legal cause.
Founders considered secession "at pleasure" nothing more than rebellion, insurrection and domestic violence, which to a man Founders opposed.
All of which DiogenesLamp well knows, but enjoys pretending otherwise.
Just stop it. Nobody wants to hear your cockamamie justifications for how the Revolutionary war was good, and the War for Southern independence was bad.
The Congress officially declared (By the Authority of Nature and of Nature's God) the United States to be a separate nation by the Declaration of Independence, and it's given date was July 4, 1776. Just stop with the nonsense.
Those made the US Declaration of Independence a matter of total necessity, which our Founders well understood and supported.
It wasn't a matter of necessity because Canada did not declare independence along with us, as they would have, had it been an actual matter of necessity.
It was "at pleasure", but *YOU* keep trying to claim it was a dire and absolute necessity. It wasn't. That's just the spin you want because you keep trying to drive a wedge in between what happened in 1776, and what happened in 1860.
Founders considered secession "at pleasure" nothing more than rebellion, insurrection and domestic violence, which to a man Founders opposed.
Nowhere did anyone say anything remotely like these words you keep trying to put in their mouths. King George III considered the Colonies secession to be "at pleasure" and absolutely not a matter of necessity.
So since we are taking Abraham Lincoln's position on "at pleasure," we must use the same standard and take King George's position that it was "at pleasure."
You have two choices. Either take the Rebelling sides claims of "necessity", or take the King's side of "at pleasure." You don't get to apply one standard to one war, and the opposite standard to the other war.