> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me.
There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.
It's also of severe dubious moral quality when the whole reason you secede is merely because you see a threat to your system of institutionalized abuse, killing, slavery, and racial injustice.
You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad.
But with that said, you're right that Pres. Lincoln is not exactly the bright shining example of civil liberties that the other comments here have made him out to be. He did far worse things than Pres. Obama in his quest for national security...
> There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.
A member state of the European Union can do that, yet it is still a union. There are quite a few anti-EU parties in Europe, yet none have mustered enough support to leave yet.
At the end of the day each state does a calculus of what the benefits of staying are and what are the maluses of EU laws they don't like. If the cons outweigh the pros, the state should leave; forcing them to stay in a bad marriage is tyrannical.
> You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad.
Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.
> Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.
What if the relationship has always been one-sided, but was entered into in the expectation of future mutual benefit?
There is certainly something to be said for two sides agreeing that there is no longer a mutual benefit for each other and choosing to go separate ways. But not for one side to unilaterally decide that they have extracted all they can from a relationship and unilaterally decide to therefore end it.
There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.
It's also of severe dubious moral quality when the whole reason you secede is merely because you see a threat to your system of institutionalized abuse, killing, slavery, and racial injustice.
You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad.
But with that said, you're right that Pres. Lincoln is not exactly the bright shining example of civil liberties that the other comments here have made him out to be. He did far worse things than Pres. Obama in his quest for national security...