So, let's sum this up...
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children" and "rich people were/are evil".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical", that such actions are driven by "evil rich people", and that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children" and "rich people are evil".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because of "evil rich people" and because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect the children from the evil rich.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save the world's children from the evil rich?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada...you get the picture....
Sycamore
