This is all new matter to me. I had been operating under the assumption that the Georgia politicians who were pro-secession had at the least developed public support for the idea. Maybe "Who is John Galt?" will have something to say in reply to these claims.
That's precisely why Georgia later became a hot-bed for secession from the Confederacy, and matter Jeff Davis of course argued was totally illegal.
I know nothing about an effort by some Georgians to secede from the Confederacy either, but I think I can guess what they relied upon as a legitimizing precedent.
Lincoln didn't deny secession, he denied the right of a wealthy minority to illegally seize states and declare open war on the Union.
I'm certainly not aware of any quotes by Lincoln in which he suggested that unilateral "secession" was a constitutional act. Obviously, I'd be interested in seeing any quotes like that.
All arguments about secession are pointless and irrelevant, as it never legally took place, and all that Lincoln did was the least he could legally due under his Consitutional obligation to maintain a Republican form of government in the states.
I've always viewed Lincoln's efforts to resist "secession" as the performance of his constitutional duty to preserve the Union. But, as I indicated above, I was not aware of the claims or arguments concerning any of the states' alleged failures to maintain a republican form of government. From what I've seen, it looked to me like the pro-secession southern politicians at least made an effort to create the appearance that they were complying with democratic precedents (e.g., "popular conventions," plebiscites, etc.).
As I've indicated in prior posts, I was very impressed by the very sensible arguments made by Alexander Stephens before both the Georgia legislature and the "secession" convention. My main criticism of the pro-secession southern politicians concerns their atrocious lack of political judgment and skills. It just seems that they were truly, truly incompetent as political leaders. In fact, my opinion of them at this point is so low that it could only be mildly diminished by discovering that they were also stuffing ballot boxes. If it is true, then maybe that was just their way of attempting to demonstrate that they were capable of doing something right.
Indeed I do - 'documentation, please.'
I've always viewed Lincoln's efforts to resist "secession" as the performance of his constitutional duty to preserve the Union.
By all means, please quote the article, section and clause of the United States Constitution that prohibits secession and tasks the president with the "duty to preserve the Union." Is it next to the clause authorizing the president to commit perjury to conceal the fact that he was getting 'bl@wj@bs' from an intern in the Oval Office washroom? 'The world wonders...'
My main criticism of the pro-secession southern politicians concerns their atrocious lack of political judgment and skills.
Apparently the specific written terms of the United States Constitution take second place, in your mind, to "political judgment and skills." How nice.
;>)