Should states be allowed to legally seceed from the union at any time?

Those lives could have been spared if those slave states hadn't seceded over slavery and then attacked federal property.

 

The states that seceded did so primarily over slavery, so I don't think we can invoke "self-determination." You can support slavery (as the seceding states did, and that was the reason they left) or you can support self-determination. You can't do both. Maybe you meant state determination? Even then, the Southern Democrats split from the party because they thought state determination wasn't enough.

 

I can invoke it as a general principle for why states should be allowed to secede if the people will it. The fact that slavery was a primary issue to the south was really incidental other than the argument over whether these disenfranchised people ought to have had a voice for the vote to be valid. Really, they weren't of the culture at the time and were more like kidnapped people from their homelands rather than disenfranchised citizens, birth notwithstanding. It could have been anything, and the same principles would apply. Lincoln didn't go to war to stop slavery, he went to war to stop secession. His actions would have been the same regardless of why the south wanted to leave. To the north, it wasn't about slavery. So actually I can be against slavery, but also for secession. I may have thought the south was "evil" at the time for allowing slavery, but at the same time think they had a right to form a different country that would hopefully move beyond slavery either way. As it was, they were kept in the union and continue to be a weight against social progress to this day when they should have been a separate country long ago.

The main reason the civil war led to the abolition of slavery was because Lincoln saw it as advantageous to the war effort. Europe had moved beyond slavery and received goods from the south. It was necessary to be the anti-slavery side to discourage Europe from aiding the South. Sure, Lincoln didn't like slavery, but this was far less important to him than preserving the union, as he explicitly wrote.

 

Why is not the issue that the United States invaded them and engaged in a war of total destruction to force them back in, with their slagery intact, settled the matter of secession.

 

The slave states attacked first. Not the US.

 

Which is a moot point in this discussion.

 

Then you shouldn't have brought up the secession of the slave states. You brought it up, not me, and now you want to run and hide from it. Again.

 

SECESSION is the issue here.

 

Nope Lincoln prevoked the war with his attempt to blockade and sending his navy into those waters. He then invaded Virginia. The last thing the Confederacy wanted was a war.

 

I've already debunked this half a dozen times at least. The first thing that the Confederacy wanted was slavery. War was a price they anticipated and prepared for before the United States ever acted. The blood is on the hands of your beloved slave states (and that's what they called themselves, by the way).

By the way, you won't do it, but I dare you to provide some dates for that "blockade" and "invasion of Virginia." I guarantee your beloved slave states struck before then.

 

And you were the one who brought up the original secession, not me. If you didn't want to talk about the original secession in a topic about secession, then you shouldn't have brought it up, and you certainly shouldn't cry about people responding to you.

 

Yes we have a history when it comes to sessions, try it and the United States will invade and engage in a war of total destruction didn't you study it in school? Now how about actually responding to it instead of crying about me not going down your slavery diversion which is not the topic here.

 

Actually your attempts to debunk history have failed every time. It had nothing to do with slavery, Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy to end slavery, he did so because they were attempting to secede.

Ft. Sumter and first Bull Run, go look up the dates for yourself.

 

Secession. Not succession. Not session. Secession. You were the one who brought up the original secession. Now you cry when I follow up.

 

The THREAD is about secession, of which we have a history in this country, and my tablet keeps correcting oh well you know what we are talking about.

So do you want to talk secession or not?