[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? The people who agreed on the succession didn’t sign the Constitution. Representation means nothing if they don’t agree to the system (which they were born into) which provides it. 10 people are on an island, and one guy wants to escape. The island votes and there is a 6-4 vote in favor of him staying. The guy tries to escape anyway and is killed. Are the other 9 justified in killing him for making an attempt at escape because their grandfathers had agreed that nobody should be allowed to escape without majority vote?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you justify killing over a half million men to "preserve the union"?

[/ QUOTE ]
It was better for the U.S.'s future. It won't make sense to you because you don't accept the premise that some government is okay, so further argument is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will temporarily accept that government is viable just to hear this. How was it better for the future of the US to kill 600,000 of their own citizens with the goal of preserving an unwanted union?