I that case the Mexican American war, the american revolution, and by extension the war of 1812, were unjust rebellions. In other words either the south had the right to secede, or every single war in American history up to it was either open rebellion or aiding and abetting the rebellion of others.
Well, that depends. I’ll agree that the Mexican American War was an unjust war. As for the revolution, the reasons behind it were complex. Were Britain’s injustices enough for a revolution? I think the key difference was this:
there were no Americans in Parliament.
No of course he didn’t, the north needed southern cotton for their textile mills as well as to purchase the slaves they’d been capturing. He didn’t want to abolish the south, he, and other northern elements, wanted to own it. The south found the federal policies to be heavily weighted to northern interests and considered that they would be better served as separate nations.
Lincoln wanted slavery to die off slowly, so his plan was to make it illegal in the territories so that it could never grow. Possibly this was weighted to Northern interests, but if you’re going to get rid of slavery, and I will not say the North was wrong in wanting this (nor will you, naturally), this way was the least hostile to Southern life.
I’m glad we’re on the same page.
Very well.
I think you think I’m saying thing’s i’m not saying, as I have said elsewhere on this forum:
I definitely affirm that the third concern on that list was gravely immoral at the very least as it was executed.
Just a general point, to cover all bases.
Tell me, where did the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding? I’m sorry to say I will want a detailed quotation on that.
I was with you right up until that last sentence.
Did the Constitution allow states to secede? If you’re going to say yes you’re going to be massaging words to the breaking point. The Constitution did not explicitly state a lot of things, but you’re going to have to stretch pretty far to interpret it in a way that means the government can’t suppress rebellions.
What you’re saying is that secession is okay if groups of people don’t like the lawfully elected government. That the South’s people were outnumbered in the government is unfortunate, but the government was elected validly, through a democratic voting process. The South just didn’t like it.
BTW, on border states rebelling:
On April 19, a pro-secessionist mob in Baltimore attacked the Massachusetts Sixth Regiment as it marched across the city to change trains on its way to Washington. In the ensuing melee, several soldiers and a number of civilians were killed. Worse still, the police commissioner ordered the railroad bridges outside the city destroyed and Page [End Page 17] the telegraph lines cut, and Unionist Governor Thomas Hicks, who had earlier refused to call the legislature into session, wavered and implored the Lincoln administration not to send any more troops across the state. Hicks’s request threatened to isolate Washington and leave the capital unprotected.
Maryland was a Union state, but attacked a Union regiment marching across the state. Don’t say that there weren’t rebellions in the border states. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was only used more because he had the border states to deal with.
quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104?rgn=main;view=fulltext
The South liked to pretend they were the proverbial white knights in the war. They weren’t.
My point was more a general one for people who keep bringing up “The Founders” as if they’re this united entity. Conservatives and liberals are very guilty of that.