> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me.

There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.

It's also of severe dubious moral quality when the whole reason you secede is merely because you see a threat to your system of institutionalized abuse, killing, slavery, and racial injustice.

You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad.

But with that said, you're right that Pres. Lincoln is not exactly the bright shining example of civil liberties that the other comments here have made him out to be. He did far worse things than Pres. Obama in his quest for national security...

> There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.

A member state of the European Union can do that, yet it is still a union. There are quite a few anti-EU parties in Europe, yet none have mustered enough support to leave yet.

At the end of the day each state does a calculus of what the benefits of staying are and what are the maluses of EU laws they don't like. If the cons outweigh the pros, the state should leave; forcing them to stay in a bad marriage is tyrannical.

> You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad. Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.

> Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.

What if the relationship has always been one-sided, but was entered into in the expectation of future mutual benefit?

There is certainly something to be said for two sides agreeing that there is no longer a mutual benefit for each other and choosing to go separate ways. But not for one side to unilaterally decide that they have extracted all they can from a relationship and unilaterally decide to therefore end it.

Morality is of little use without a plan to implement it. True moral conviction will search for a way to achieve moral progress.

Lincoln was vastly more effective than others, and I attribute that to his strong morality.

I agree. He likely understood that a separate south was likely to support slavery for much longer than a south that was part of a union that tolerated slavery in the south for a time, even if the civil war had not occurred. In which case preservation of the union was important to achieving some form of moral progress.

First, I am very weak in history, so I won't try to engage deeply. But I think some things to consider would be these:

Lincoln believed that slavery would die out within an intact US in time, and that pretty much the only thing the federal government could do was to keep it from spreading to states where it did not already exist. Unlike today, in those days the idea that the Federal government actually had limited power was still taken seriously.

If the slaveholding states were allowed to secede then no pressure could be placed on them to give up slavery, and they might even capture or purchase other territories and spread slavery further. So if the moral imperative is to end slavery, then it's urgent to keep the Union intact. And no, I don't think a country is just a club where a province or state can up and leave whenever it wants. There are times when it's wise to allow this, as Havel did with Czechoslovakia, but generally a country is like the Mafia or a spy agency from the movies: you can't resign.

Habeas: this was a war, but I'm really ignorant of the issues here.

wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union: see above; you can only do what is possible to do, regardless of your feelings. Lincoln wanted to avoid this war, which was started by the South and forced upon him. Of course many people died.

riiight, he was forced to blockade the CSA after they seceded...

> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out?

Because while there's provisions allowing states to be admitted with the consent of the rest of the States, there's none permitting them to leave on their own once they've joined. That's the deal they signed on for.