Which "four score and seven years ago" was regarded as a just cause, and referred to as "Independence". They even wrote about it.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The rebellion was over slavery,
Not on the Union side it wasn't. As I have mentioned to you before, A D@mn I do not give about WHY one people wish to disassociate themselves from another, I simply believe that forced association is wrong.
That the Croats and Serbs do not wish to associate is all I need to know. I do not care to wade into their specific reasons for wishing to be separate, I only recognize that people have, and ought to have a right to associate with whom they please, and likewise to disassociate from whom they please.
Some slave states did not rebel, therefore, no action was taken against them.
You mean, they continued to do what Washington D.C. told them to do. Exactly! It wasn't the SLAVERY that Washington D.C. found unacceptable, it was the DEFIANCE that Washington D.C. could not tolerate. (same as now.)
So why the F**k do you keep going on and on and on about slavery, when you keep inadvertently admitting that Slavery wasn't the reason Washington D.C. ordered armies into those states?
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with this concept, despite having it explained to you over and over.
Because I do not accept the idea of placing a LESSER PRINCIPLE above that of a SUPERIOR PRINCIPLE. It is the bone of contention between us that you do.
Just because you rebel doesn't make your cause righteous, or guarantee that it will succeed.
Not on the Union side it wasn't.
The United States did not rebel. It put down a rebellion. The distinction appears lost on you.
As I have mentioned to you before, A D@mn I do not give about WHY one people wish to disassociate themselves from another, I simply believe that forced association is wrong.
Except that as you've said before, an individual doesn't have that right, my block doesn't have that right, the Lion's Club doesn't have that right. It's only a right, as far as I understand your position, that only comes at some level of "the people" which you consistently appear to be unable or unwilling to define.
! It wasn't the SLAVERY that Washington D.C. found unacceptable, it was the DEFIANCE that Washington D.C. could not tolerate. (same as now.)
It was rebellion, beginning with the shelling of a United States Army fort, that Washington found unacceptable. Are you saying they should have? Are you aware that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power to suppress insurrections?
So why the F**k do you keep going on and on and on about slavery, when you keep inadvertently admitting that Slavery wasn't the reason Washington D.C. ordered armies into those states?
Inadvertently? I've said it outright, over and over, and you keep acting like you've caught me in something. As for why slavery keeps coming up as an issue in these discussions, it's because it's the entire rationale that the southern states gave for their actions, as I've abundantly demonstrated. Like in Mississippi's declaration "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." THAT'S why these discussions always talk about slavery. Sorry that that's a problem for you.