[billbears]

during the entire New England ordeal, there is virtually no literature to be found that supports the view that the inherent right to secession was non-existent. It was, in fact, really never questioned

I'm not saying she's on the same level as these men but they are both saying the same thing. Face it, this nation was based on a secessionist movement and the attempt to practice it again in the early 1800s is never questioned. Heck, it's hard enough to find material about it!! Why? Because if the general public were to truly study not just the words of lincoln and his worshippers like McPherson, people would begin to see the South wasn't in the wrong and lincoln was

[Non-Sequitur]

You're wrong on a couple of things, billbears. Until you can show me where any section of the country talked about secession and then tried to put their talk into action they you are talking apples and oranges. I will concede that various parts of the North and the south talked of secession or threatened secession but it never got farther than that, and talk isn't a criminal offense. The south was the first to actually revolt, so they were the first that suffered the consequences. Had New England tried to secede and had the government taken no action then you have a case.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Face it, this nation was based on a secessionist movement ...

Absolutely false and you've seen this before.

For the Revolution to have been a secessionist movement, the colonists would have had to have the same rights as Englishmen. And they did not.

Any reasonable definition of secession would have to include the concept that it transpired between equals.

You are trying to co-opt the true heroes of the Revolution to lessen the stench of the traitous rebels of 1860-65. And the record --to say nothing of the English language -- won't support it.

Walt