"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Now watch out; you're about to join the ranks of Twodees, Billbears, Stand Watier and others. There is simply no way to twist Lincoln's words into a support for legal, unilateral state secession.
Whatever credibility you have will go right out the window if you continue to maintain that Lincoln supported legal, unilateral state secession. There is not one scintilla of evidence that he supported such an "unjust and absurd position", to use his very words that are readily available in the record. No one, certainly not me- and certainly not Lincoln, would deny a right of revolution, with or without just cause. I mean after all, (and this is what Lincoln is referring to in this favorite quote of the legal secession crowd) is revolution.
Now, if we want to agree that 'secession' and 'revolution' are exact synonymns, then we are in agreement. The slave holder/secessionists went outside United States law to secede and attempt to establish a new nation. If you agree with that position, then we have no conflict on this point
Lincoln often said that all his political ideas sprag from the Declaration of Independence--especially that part about all men being created equal.
So it is not much of a stretch for him to support a right of revolution. But old Lincoln was a pretty canny lawter, don't you know. And no way was he going to allow the law to be flagrantly disregarded when he had just sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Lastly, compare honestly Lincolns words on 7/4/61 and see, honestly now, if there is anything inconsistant with his 1848 (Lincoln was a congressman from 1848-50)statement and 1861:
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?
Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...
If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
And there is nothing inconsistant between this passage and the one you tout. I'm sorry, but if you don't want to show extreme bias, you'll have to readjust your position.
Walt
I'm simply quoting the historical record here. You may not want to hear or see that record at times, but that doesn't make it go away. As to the quote, you tell me then what Lincoln was talking about: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Whatever credibility you have will go right out the window
Since when are you the distributer of credibility? If you are, may I ask where I should go to request the person that appointed you to that position reconsider his action? Cause you are no shining beacon of credibility yourself, as evidenced by your dishonest straw man debating tactics and intentional efforts to ignore the historical record when you don't like what it says.
if you continue to maintain that Lincoln supported legal, unilateral state secession.
Again, I'm simply quoting the historical record. You tell me what the following means: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
There is not one scintilla of evidence that he supported such an "unjust and absurd position", to use his very words that are readily available in the record.
That they may be, but my quoted words are themselves readily available in the record as well. So again, you tell me what Lincoln meant: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Now, if we want to agree that 'secession' and 'revolution' are exact synonymns, then we are in agreement.
Did you not call it that yourself? You're the one that just completed a diatribe about how Lincoln navigated the country through the period when half of it was in revolt, as in a revolution.
The slave holder/secessionists went outside United States law to secede and attempt to establish a new nation.
Only so far as we maintain the position that a revolting people must first seek the consent of their government before deciding to revolt, and that is itself an absurd proposition. That being said, it is only accurate to note that the south did everything it legally could to facilitate its separation - it held elections on secession, it's elected officials voted in legislature to seceed etc.
If you agree with that position, then we have no conflict on this point
I'll agree that no, the nation did not have a law allowing part of it to revolt. I agree to that as it is an absurd proposition to suggest anything otherwise, for it defeats the whole purpose of a revolution.