“Obviously he was not.”
Only a propagandist could read his words and conclde that.
I can't imagine how anyone can read them and conclude otherwise.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
you know no matter how one looks at this question then those who say no are syaing that it is alright to kill others because they do not want to live in a place which they feel oppressed.
maybe the better questions are.
1. do you(not you) feel that DC should order troops and kill anyone, wage war on those who do not want to be in a place where they feel oppressed?
2. If some of us southern states joined together again knowing we have the infrastructure and energy then will you come down here and kill us to keep the rest who survive?
The latter question is for those who feel that lets say the south has gone it alone.
After all the north today would not get very far without the south seeing as we have the major ports, land, energy especially and agriculture,