A man in his own house has certain privileges that someone coming into his house does not. It is his prerogative to demand that "guests" leave his house.
The entire crux of the matter is whether States have a right to be independent of a government they see as no longer serving their interests, and the foundation document of this nation answers that question in the affirmative.
If they do have the right to be independent, then what they did was reasonable and proper. Lincoln had no right to force them to continue abiding by his rule.
And you never did answer my question as to why anyone would want those D@mn slave states in their union anyway?
Why would anyone want those D@mn slave states in their Union?
And you answer by promoting additional myths. This is going nowhere fast.
Diogeneslamp: ***”A man in his own house has certain privileges that someone coming into his house does not.
It is his prerogative to demand that “guests” leave his house.”***
But a man who pretends a house is his when such ownership is not lawfully established can go to jail for pretending.
Secession was never lawfully certified by the United States.
Diogeneslamp: ***”The entire crux of the matter is whether States have a right to be independent of a government they see as no longer serving their interests, and the foundation document of this nation answers that question in the affirmative.”***
But that was only how Diogeneslamp and 1860 Fire Eaters said it.
Out Founders said, firstly, a long train of abuses and usurpations could justify disunion and secondly, so could mutual consent.
Neither condition existed in 1860 and so Fire Eaters took a third path, one *** never *** endorsed by Founders: unilateral unapproved declarations of secession **at pleasure**.
Naturally Fire Eaters then, and Lost Causers today, wish us to equate their actions to our Founders’.
But they were nowhere near the same.