View single post by Barlow
 Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2012 10:45 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Barlow
Member


Joined: Fri Jul 10th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 In the end, I will only grant Texas Defender the position that there is no right or wrong, legal precedent, mention within the Articles of Confederation or Constitution that secession is mentioned or not mentioned.  In other words, there is no right, nor is there a prohibition within these above documents to secession.

In the end, Lincoln was a serious statesman interested in saving the nation;  he was not interested in scoring debating points with secessionists. 

May I suggest, Mark E. Neely Jr Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation, a rather dry but effective book;  Lincoln's Four Main Arguments against Secession, which can be found online and by George Desnoyers;  The Impending Crisis  by David Potter.

Regarding the trial of Jefferson Davis, making that argument that because he was not tried, ergo Secession must have been legal is baseless at best.  Times were different and President Johnson was facing Impeachment himself and had no time for a trial.  Holt was prepared to do it, but the country had no stomach for it.  Because we have not tried the terrorists at Guantanamo, are we to say they must be innocent?

I do take back that we should have hung Lee, however, and apologize for my sectionalism.  Go Notre Dame!