Our nation lived with slavery for almost a century because the anti-slavery states abided by the constitution and lived with slavery because the constitution set up rules and as long as the slave state4s had the majority, we were a slave nation. When the tide turned and it looked like we would be able to abolish slavery, the slave states decided they didn’t like the rules anymore.
If after much effort on the part of some states, we were on the verge of a constitutional amendment that banned abortions past the second trimester and California suddenly decided, they didn’t like the rules anymore, then we might fight with force.
Is the “we” here California or the rest of the states? Frankly, if California wanted to leave, I’d shrug and say, “ok, go ahead”, just like I expect most Californians would say if Texas decided to secede.
It’s one thing to say that you support Texan independence (for example) as a Texan. It’s quite another to say you’d move to a state agitating for independence to join the struggle. Anyway, Scotland and Quebec (mostly) have peaceful secessionist movements operating within the framework of democratic governments.
Right. Lincoln’s great fear was that if the Union broke up, the European powers would start forming alliances with this or that American state and the states would find themselves embroiled in proxy wars. Not an unfounded fear, France was running a puppet-regime in Mexico at the time.
I don’t think that’s quite right (although if you have a cite I’d love to see it). My understanding is that Lincoln’s great fear was that if the secession was successful then no democracy would be able to stand as every state (general “state”, not US state) would break up into (potentially warring) factions over every difference; in the end democracy fails. Certainly the alliances you refer to were a fear but they were a symptom, not the cause.