He also seems to confuse the significance of even the terms that he uses. The debate in 1860 was over the Union. It was a Union of States. To understand the concept, the term "Nation" does not really apply. For example, Sioux were a Nation. England & Scotland were States, united in the United Kingdom at the time. In the Elizabethan era, Scotland was a State, the Scots as a people, scattered in many cases as mercenaries all over Europe, were a Nation--hence the term "Mary Queen of Scots," not "Mary Queen of Scotland."
The fundamental issue over the American Union was really the same in 1860 as now. It goes to the function of a political institution that the Founders Created. It is a structure adopted by an American ethnicity, intended to secure the common interests & liberty of those of that ethnicity. The question then, as now in the age of Obama, is has that structure been corrupted from its purpose.
Those who appeal to it as something created in Heaven--something analogous to the former doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings," need to go back and read the foundational documents--need to understand what the Declaration of Independence, actually demanded; what the Constitution actually required.
William Flax
The American republic was created for all men not just whites. It’s constitution did not forbid Blacks from voting, nor women from voting, nor Asians from voting.
Your belief does reveal the depth of delusion rational people have to deal with in the defenders of the Slaver Revolt.