same act as the destroyer of liberty,especially as the sheep was a black one.Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty;and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures&133;and all professing to love liberty.7 North as well as South understood that the consent of the majority is necessary for rule in a Republic,and neither could see good government apart from majority rule.We see that both anti-slavery Southerners like Robert E.Lee and anti-secessionists like Alexander Stephens went along with their respective states when the decision to secede had been made by a majority of the people living in those states.8 Lee,Stephens,and countless others may not have agreed with the reason for leaving or the actual leaving itself;nonetheless,they accepted the rule of the majority and consented to the rule of their state.Therefore,it is apparent that the Southerners accepted majority rule when their state seceded,but they rejected it when it elected Lincoln president. The central contention between North and South after the 1860 election was the purpose of majority rule.In the Southern mind,the purpose of a Lincoln presidency would be the eventual death of the institution of slavery.Even though a constitutional majority of the Union had elected Lincoln president,the interests of the few would thereafter be threatened. The South has an interest in slavery and cannot give it up.It is a useful institution for them,one which grants them both wealth and leisure. Slavery has always been a part of their history and Lincoln notes,"They are just what we would be in their situation."9 But at the time of Lincoln's election,slavery is no longer merely in the interest of the Southerners.It has become something much more valuable and precious: slavery has become a right.It now possesses a role greater than that of interest and has transcended the bounds of that which can be reasonably given up by the ballot.Because they believed the election of 1860 threatens their rights,the rule of the majority loses its authority and justification.Therefore,the South abandons the rule of the majority because they understand,as Lincoln did,that if the majority votes to deprive a minority of any of its essential rights,it would morally justify revolution.10 But secession is not the same as revolution,and the Southern people never claimed that their "leaving the Union"was an act of Revolution.And Lincoln certainly understood the theory of Revolution,but his argument was that the federal government had no intention of depriving any minority of any of its essential rights.Therefore,according to Lincoln,the right to revolution was guaranteed,but because no one had been harmed in his rights or his property,the people of the South could not appeal to revolution,as the Declaration says,"[W]henever any Form of Governmentsame act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures&133; and all professing to love liberty. 7 North as well as South understood that the consent of the majority is necessary for rule in a Republic, and neither could see good government apart from majority rule. We see that both anti-slavery Southerners like Robert E. Lee and anti-secessionists like Alexander Stephens went along with their respective states when the decision to secede had been made by a majority of the people living in those states. 8 Lee, Stephens, and countless others may not have agreed with the reason for leaving or the actual leaving itself; nonetheless, they accepted the rule of the majority and consented to the rule of their state. Therefore, it is apparent that the Southerners accepted majority rule when their state seceded, but they rejected it when it elected Lincoln president. The central contention between North and South after the 1860 election was the purpose of majority rule. In the Southern mind, the purpose of a Lincoln presidency would be the eventual death of the institution of slavery. Even though a constitutional majority of the Union had elected Lincoln president, the interests of the few would thereafter be threatened. The South has an interest in slavery and cannot give it up. It is a useful institution for them, one which grants them both wealth and leisure. Slavery has always been a part of their history and Lincoln notes, "They are just what we would be in their situation." 9 But at the time of Lincoln’s election, slavery is no longer merely in the interest of the Southerners. It has become something much more valuable and precious: slavery has become a right. It now possesses a role greater than that of interest and has transcended the bounds of that which can be reasonably given up by the ballot. Because they believed the election of 1860 threatens their rights, the rule of the majority loses its authority and justification. Therefore, the South abandons the rule of the majority because they understand, as Lincoln did, that if the majority votes to deprive a minority of any of its essential rights, it would morally justify revolution. 10 But secession is not the same as revolution, and the Southern people never claimed that their "leaving the Union" was an act of Revolution. And Lincoln certainly understood the theory of Revolution, but his argument was that the federal government had no intention of depriving any minority of any of its essential rights. Therefore, according to Lincoln, the right to revolution was guaranteed, but because no one had been harmed in his rights or his property, the people of the South could not appeal to revolution, as the Declaration says, "[W]henever any Form of Government