Forcing a state to stay in a union in which it doesn't wish to belong is a big violation of states rights, which is paramount to federalism.
Only if one assumes that the states have a right to secede to begin with. Otherwise, it is just the national government upholding its rights. Unilateral secession seems pretty weird to me. You just leave without making an arrangement for, e.g. the national debt, part of which was spent in your territory?
Lincoln and the Republicans did argue against the spread of slavery but again the people of the territory should have control of what they did in their states.
So if what Lincoln and the Republicans did was wrong, did the original Founding Fathers also violate federalism by passing the Northwest ordinance prohibiting slavery in a series of territories? Was the Missouri Compromise itself wrong, as it prohibited any state north of 36'30 from allowing slavery?
By the way, the whole point of a territory is that they are not 'states'. States have complete power over their domestic institutions. Territorial governments are creatures of Congress. That is why Congress can prohibit slavery in territories, but not in states.
States absolutely have a right to secede, how could they not? Any union that's not based on mutual consent is no true union.
A union certainly does not imply a right to unilateral secession. And even the Confederacy explicitly prohibited leaving it. This is leaving aside whether or not this is desirable.
that northwest ordinance I don't know enough to have an educated opinion on. Was the Missouri Compromise, I would say it wasn't against because it was agreed to, it was a product of consent.
What do you mean, 'agreed to'? By whom? Certainly not by the territories in question, as it was just an absolute prohibition of slavery north of 36'30. It was not popular sovereignty.
Only if one assumes that the states have a right to secede to begin with. Otherwise, it is just the national government upholding its rights. Unilateral secession seems pretty weird to me. You just leave without making an arrangement for, e.g. the national debt, part of which was spent in your territory?
So if what Lincoln and the Republicans did was wrong, did the original Founding Fathers also violate federalism by passing the Northwest ordinance prohibiting slavery in a series of territories? Was the Missouri Compromise itself wrong, as it prohibited any state north of 36'30 from allowing slavery?
By the way, the whole point of a territory is that they are not 'states'. States have complete power over their domestic institutions. Territorial governments are creatures of Congress. That is why Congress can prohibit slavery in territories, but not in states.
A union certainly does not imply a right to unilateral secession. And even the Confederacy explicitly prohibited leaving it. This is leaving aside whether or not this is desirable.
What do you mean, 'agreed to'? By whom? Certainly not by the territories in question, as it was just an absolute prohibition of slavery north of 36'30. It was not popular sovereignty.