Rule of law v Rule of men

That's the choice.  It is always the choice.

It has been said that the country is more divided now than in a long time. Let's look at another time in which the divisions were so deep that a civil war developed. What could have been different about the history of that? Could war have been avoided?

Here's a thought. The South could have succeeded in leaving the Union without having to fire a shot. Once they went to war, the game was over. How could they have won?

By adhering to the rule of law. By refusing to accept the outcome of the election, they set in motion the inevitability of their defeat.

The rule of law says that a Constitutional Convention could be called if enough states agreed to it. The issue of slavery was so strong that a Convention at that time may have been possible on that issue alone. If they had agreed not to leave the Union in exchange for a constitutional convention on the basis of the issue of slavery, they might have got it and won.

The main argument against a convention is that it would be unpredictable and uncontrollable. If that's true now, it would have been true then as well. This would have worked in the South's favor because a possible outcome would have been totally unforeseen. What could have been done to stop an idea that the South could leave, if they so chose? This could have been proposed as an amendment and it may have passed. If it had been passed, it may have been ratified. If it had been ratified, the South could have seceded successfully.

On the other hand, by not going this course, they became outlaws. This enabled Lincoln to go to war with the South and conquer it. This would not have been possible if the South had stuck to the rule of law. There would have been nothing that Lincoln could have done about it.

That analysis has the benefit of hindsight. Those at the time had no way of knowing for sure how the fortunes of war would turn. If they had tried a constitutional convention and had lost, many may have regretted that they didn't go to war instead.

Everything has its risk.

The way to deal with the Democrats is the same as the way the South should have dealt with the North. Stick with the rule of law. If the Democrats try to expand the government too much, then propose a Convention. This has the risk of making things worse, but you may have the chance to win. Those are the fortunes of politics which is another form of war, but at least you play by the rules of law. This keeps you from losing the high ground in the battle of morality.

You see, the rule of law must be more moral than the rule of men. Justice cannot be decided by force alone.