[Arkinsaw]

Tell us Mr. Blood of Tyrants, who were the "Tyrants in that situation?

You make the mistake of tying the horse that is the political concept of secession to the cart that is slavery.

What you are failing to do is contemplate the political concept of secession on its own. It is entirely possible that one could be completely dismissive of the South's reasons for secession in 1860 and yet understand that the political act of secession itself is not necessarily tied to the reasons of 1860.

In another post I have given the example of a liberal controlled Federal government practicing tyranny over Alaska by making it into a wildlife refuge and prohibiting any development. Nearly everyone here would recognize that as a tyrannous action yet many here have a policy that secession is just bad, bad, bad. In reality, it is this type of abuse that led the founders to sever the political bonds with England. I find it hard to believe that they would deny that to their descendants in such cases. I also find it hard to believe that many here would expect Alaskans to remain in such a union or would force them to do so.

Such tyranny could take many forms. Urban areas in the east and west coasts could decide by the power of their majority that Wyoming would become the national trash dump. Could decide that Nevada would become the national toxic waste and nuclear testing center. Could decide that no mining is to take place in Utah because it is going to be a national monument. The people of those States or Regions have absolutely no recourse if there is not a respected right of peaceful withdrawal of the consent to govern. NONE.

You can rail against the slaveholders of 1860 and think that they had bad reasons to secede and should not have done it and even think that they were traitors to the "spirit" of the union and that the tyranny they decried was blown out of proportion. But to throw away secession as a political recourse against tyranny leaves nothing when something YOU recognize as real tyranny arrives. The precedent has been set for you to be invaded and your house burned down.

[Ditto]

What you are failing to do is contemplate the political concept of secession on its own. It is entirely possible that one could be completely dismissive of the South's reasons for secession in 1860 and yet understand that the political act of secession itself is not necessarily tied to the reasons of 1860.

I prefer to rely on James Madison who certainly knew what revolution was and what the Constitution meant. In 1833, he said that secession in the absense of intellorable abuse was just another name for revolution.

Unlike the men of Philadelphia in 1776, the south never demonstrated intollerable abuse in 1860. Losing an free and fair election is not a cause for revolution.