If you look at questions and answers of the Radvaz you will see what I have been saying all along. That if you have two people in a contract, and one breaks the conditions of the contract, the other has the right to leave the partnership. This happened in Egypt where three people had the king’s treasury in partnership, and one Reuven was not active at all, but simply collected a percentage. Part of the agreement was that the other two that were active would not loan out any of the money to anyone. It was simply to collect taxes. And yet even though they swore not to, they violated the contract and later money was found missing. Still Reuven was forced to pay a third of the missing money as per the agreement with the king. If money was found missing, then the partners had to pay with their own money. However, the Radvaz wrote that Reuben had the right to leave the partnership. Why should not the same idea apply to the Civil War? The North violated the contract –state’s rights, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. Why should the South not be allowed to leave the partnership? Think of a wife that wants to leave a marriage. Should the husband wage war to stop her? however political union is not the same thing as a business contract. and who says the north violated the contract? there was no case before the supreme court that annulled state's rights. I think i have to agree with president Lincoln.and besides that, once the USA was known to defend individual freedoms' my grandparents had somewhere they could immigrate to --to live in a system that defended freedom and justice for all.