^Correct. How come you don't post more often?
Here's how you deal with Philip:
Yes, there is an argument that Lincoln violated states rights in the abolition of slavery. On the other hand, it was a legal law, and succession from the Union is not a legal means of combating it. Lincoln did not invade the south, as you contend. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall he deliberately waited until the South made the first move by letting Rebel armies rise up and attack garrissons and armories. This gave his governmental action legitimacy. And, it is true, he did overstep his bounds in wartime. But again, that's not uncommon. In times of war, there is only one Commander-In-Chief. People tend to forget that.
What is comes down to is, if you don't like the laws of the country and are not willing to fight them through legislature, and are unwilling to live with them, you ARE free to leave. However, you may not take the nation with you without a fight (Revolutionary War accepted, because we had no way of challenging British authority).
Tsk tsk. Another inoffensive somewhat-conservative getting attacked because of unpopular opinions. People have got to get over this idea that if they feel the argument is stupid enough, they can skip over the debate and legitimately call names and start derision. That's got to stop, and people who do that need to be banned. What are the moderators doing? |