If you're a person who still argues that the South had a legal and moral right to secede in 1861 *cough* Fred Bryan cough*you would be advised to read chapter XVI of U.S. Grant's memoirs (and the first page of the following chapter). I've rarely, if ever, read a more articulate and intelligent refutation of the CSA's legitimacy.
Fred Bryan
Note that his refutation came after the illegal , unjust and immoral war.
Me:
Would u have listened to him when he was just a clerk in a leather goods store? When else was he to write it but after his fame. Read it 🙂
Fred Bryan
What I mean, is that it's usually pretty easy to justify what one did to an opponent that one has destroyed years afterward. Rome certainly justified the destruction of Carthage, after all.
Or put another way, one can murder their dinner companion, then, before calling the police, arrange the scene to make it appear that the victim had gone berserk and that the killer had no choice.
This was one of the great virtues of the Declaration of Independence, that the proposed course of action that the United Colonies wished to follow was laid out with its justifications more or less in advance.
Me:
again, read the chapter, esp the section where we points out that a document largely crafted by southern slave owners offered no mechanism for secession. All arguments for its 'right' came when the south could no longer dominate Washington and thus protect slavery. Or, to use your example, once they'd taken it upon themselves to try and murder their dinner guest 🙂
