Your question reminds me of the same logic used by the left-wing when they continually asked: if we attacked Saddam Hussein then why not every other dictatorship? Why not Saudia Arabia? etc...
As long as you make an argument for some similarity that you percieve then you will just argue the point until exhuastion in order to not be wrong.
Lincoln was elected and was sworn an oath to protect the United States Constitution from ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.
The Confederates were determined to defy the Constitution and disregard it. They also attacked the United States forces as well.
It is amazing that some on FR here continue to want to argue for the unilateral right to secession. Yet they have done nothing to try rto have the Constitution amended to say such in all of this time. Instead they just rebel rause such as this thread does.
“It is amazing that some on FR here continue to want to argue for the unilateral right to secession. Yet they have done nothing to try rto have the Constitution amended to say such in all of this time. Instead they just rebel rause such as this thread does.”
Just to add to this statement above:
There are some groups who are trying to do something in order to achieve the right to secession today and the recent past and guess what?
The majority of them are either Progressives (with a tinge of libertariansism) or all out Marxists.
Coincidence?
See my post at #112 about "defending" the Constitution.
About the Confederates attacking the North see #70. The Southerners had no designs upon the Northern States and it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest otherwise.
ML/NJ