denial

 Election deniers. That's a new term I hear a lot these days. It's nothing new really though. What is an election denier? It is simply anyone that does not accept the results of an election. Is it solely based on the belief that there was fraud of some kind taking place? You could say that and argue for that. Still the essence of the denier is that they are unwilling to accept the results of the election. An early example of this took place in December of 1860. Democrats refused to accept the election of Abraham Lincoln. They did that by the "declaration of immediate cause" Christmas eve 1860. In that document they declared the federal government was infringing upon states' rights. They refused to accept the results fearing Lincoln was going to abolish slavery in the United States. They believed that despite Lincoln never having said anything to indicate that he would. Lincoln said in a campaign speech in 1858,   “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites."

 Their argument hinged upon the issue of state's rights. That is what they tried to use as the cause of succession. They explicitly talk about the holding of slaves and the refusal of free states to return their "property" as a violation of their rights. What they didn't mention was their refusal to honor the rights of the other states to not participate in the slave trade, recognize slaves as property, and any obligation to return those that escaped from slavery. Clearly all of that was a violation of those states' rights! To be clear, the issue was the fear that Lincoln would free the slaves and it would decimate the economy of those states holding slaves. The argument that it was about rights was a deceit, it was clearly about the holding of slaves.

 Now Lincoln was opposed to the holding of slaves on moral grounds. The problem was the Constitution allowed the practice. It was 100% legal. We are struggling with similar moral issues today. The marriage equality act is an example of that. It, by federal mandate, forces every state in the union to acknowledge, support and defend same sex marriage. Moral misgivings notwithstanding, that's the law. Roe V Wade is a famous example of the same thing, a moral dilemma. In Lincolns time just as it is today when campaigning the object is to garner as much support as possible. You can't do that by being direct, forthright and expressing unpopular sentiments directly. Case in point, Donald Trump. That stuff only goes so far before toes are stepped on. 

 Well, it is what it is. History can be told from many different viewpoints, each one slightly different from the other. A just cause or a denial? South Carolina issued that declaration of immediate cause in December although as far back as April of that year there had been talk. It wasn't until the election results were known that that document was issued. It basically was a denial of the election results, a lack of acceptance. There would be no "working across the aisle" in this case. They took their ball and left the game completely. They were the Democrats. Ironically the party that wants big government to control everything! Hardly the group that seems concerned with your rights! There are interested in power and control. That can be maintained by any means necessary, including the holding of slaves. That was indeed included in their constitution. "The Confederate version used the word “slaves,” unlike the U.S. Constitution. One article banned any Confederate state from making slavery illegal. Another ensured that slave owners could travel between Confederate states with their slaves." Quoted from a web source not my own words. 

 Election deniers? Yes, I'd say they were the first to openly deny the results of an election. By deny, I mean refuse to accept the results. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but I see it that way. One thing to question, to say you have doubts about the legality or validity of reported results, quite another to secede! To just say, I'm not acknowledging that at all, I'm starting my own country! You violated my rights by exercising your rights!