Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?

0
Posted

Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?

0

No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a “rebellion” and a “threat” to “the government” (without ever explaining exactly how “the government” was “threatened” by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5] The South’s rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn’t prove secession is “not an option” or unlawful.

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123