And even if it was 100% about slavery—so what? Slavery WAS LEGAL at that time....it would be analogous to a cadre of states wanting to secede for abortion “rights”...or gay marriage “rights”. Looking at events through a prism of 150 years of “enlightenment” is not a valid historical construct. It needs to be looked at via the context of the time.
What IS true is that Abraham Lincoln took the constitution, shredded it, tore it to pieces and threw it in the garbage. It was strictly an “ends justifying the means” device—but he set the tone for every president to do it in ever increasing frequency and method. I would not, for any amount of money, have wanted to be in his place—it was probably the absolutely worst nexus in our country’s history...but that does not change the fact that he ignored the constitution at best, and outright defied it at worst.
“...it was probably the absolutely worst nexus in our country’s history...but that does not change the fact that he ignored the constitution at best, and outright defied it at worst.”
The WORST was the so-called “reconstruction” - creating an enormous impoverished (except for the sanctioned “traders”, north and South) then destroying homes, farms and infrastructure and dumping three million homeless into the streets with no provision to care for them.
Almost as stupid as creating 30 million HealthCare clients with no more doctors or faciliti8es to care for them.
But far more lethal.
I don't know about your analogy. You defend secession in defense of slavery by comparing it to secession in defense of access to abortion or gay marriage. Then or now, all three would be wrong. And unconstitutional.
A more correct analogy would be states rebelling over a threat to the expansion of abortion rights or gay marriage rights.
What IS true is that Abraham Lincoln took the constitution, shredded it, tore it to pieces and threw it in the garbage.
In what way?