I like your enthusiasm for your idea, but nothing justified Lincoln going to war against his own people. They seceeded. That means they left the country, but that doesn’t require a war. The disagreed about the power the central government should have over the states. The Confederacy was for states’ rights and the North was for the federal government ruling all. Lincoln should have used diplomacy and saved a million lives.
Remember, our country was founded upon rebellion. We didn’t have a legal right to take England’s colonies away, but we did it anyway because we wanted to do it. I’m not sure where you get the idea that it was the South attacking the North. Thy defended themselves against attack, but just look at where the battles were fought. In the South.
Succession is the right to go to war against those who declared themselves a new foreign power. Succession is to say you are no longer part of this county, hence not his people and you’re stealing what belongs to America. Sound like every reason to go to war. If we use your idea there’s no longer a reason to have a military - anyone who wants a piece of the us can just come in and take it and declare succession.
You are wrong. Lincoln did not support power over all. He supported the constitution as it was written and the Supreme Court interpreted and to which he swore an oath to uphold. No state has the right to succeed, it’s just not in the constitution. And the supreme law of the land is the constitution - that is in there. You can’t just change the document. There is a process to change it, the Amendment process. And 9 Supreme Court justices have the power to alter previous interpretations. There is no succession clause.
Yes you are correct we were formed by rebellion and England had every right to try and stop us. Not even our founding fathers would argue such a point. But they were not able to put down that rebellion and Lincoln was. The south attacked the us the minute they declared succession - they declared the theft of land. I don’t negotiate with a man who breaks into my house. He gets a bullet right between the eyes so the only story told is mine.
If we’re to believe they can declare they are no longer be part of the government and the land they own is their’s based on state government documents, which is what we say. And that such ownership allows them to remove it from the jurisdiction of the federal government, than all any foreign power has to do is by land and present their deed and say this is no longer American territory. That would be absurd and so is your position.
Your statements are not enthusiastic for your point but justifications for treasonous acts, if we are to assume these people were still use citizens helping those who declared they were not. Or justifications against the assault of an enemy taking US territory. If we assume they were no longer citizens, your post is treasonous by giving giving aid and comfort (justifications) to an enemy (albeit long since passed).
It is NOT a state’s right to succeed. The constitution is clear in joining the states. If it were not then the part where something not being mentioned in the constitution made it a power of the state or the people would apply. But it clearly does not as the power of allegiance is in the constitution including the power to join. I suppose Congress could pass a law for success along the same vein but it did not.
Furthermore the institution the south was attempting to preserve was not only financially stupid it was morally apprehensible. But the constitution allowed it, until it did not.
Frankly you’d have an easier time justifying Mexican re-annexation of Texas than Southern succession.
