No, no, you misunderstand.
Whether I approve or not is not the issue here.
The question is: why, I repeat why, did Deep South Fire Eaters declare their secessions, beginning in December 1860.
The clear answer is: if you look at their documents of the time, there's only one reason, and that is to protect the future of their "peculiar institution", slavery, against perceived future threats from "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans.
Nothing else mattered enough to those people to drive them to secession.
Every cockamamie excuse concocted in the years and century since are pure fantasy.
Deep South secessionists well knew why they declared secession, and they weren't ashamed to say it publically.
However, their problem was: in December 1860 the Southern Slave Power still substantially controlled the Federal government, just as it had almost continuously since 1788, and no actual damage had yet been done them.
That made their secessions "at pleasure", which even highly sympathetic Northern Dough-faced Democrats like President Buchanan said was unlawful.
DiogenesLamp: "That hypocritical thing that even Secretary of State Seward couldn't stomach?"
It was a fact of US constitutional law that the President had authority to free "contraband" slaves in the protection of the US Army, but not slaves in states which had not declared their secession.
Seward well understood that, and his comment is ironical, not bitter or critical.
And that is why, in December 1863, radical Republicans began submitting bills for a constitutional amendment -- the 13th -- totally and permanently abolishing slavery.
So why is it that you people think this is such a clever issue to raise?
Surely the real facts are simple enough for anyone to grasp?
DiogenesLamp: "Twisting the arms of State legislatures with Federal occupation troops is probably not what the Founders would have considered to be a legitimate expression of the Democratic process.
In fact, I believe our current legal system sees contracts made under duress as invalid."
Oh, but FRiend, there was vastly less arm-twisting or duress than you imagine here for one simple reason: those state legislatures now included, for the first time elected black representatives.
So there was no duress, there was joy and liberation in those state-houses.
Of course, it didn't last so long, since the KKK and Jim Crow soon reared their ugly heads to take back the power they had temporarily lost.
DiogenesLamp: "Good political operatives retroactively made the war about Slavery, so as if to give the Union moral cover for the people that got killed during the Southern states efforts to gain independence.
The Winners of a conflict will always force history into making them appear to be the 'good guys', even when they are not."
And, of course, the Lost-Cause Losers endlessly concoct mythology to pretend they weren't really the bad guys, didn't really stupidly start a war, etc., etc.
The truth of this matter is that from DAY ONE, secession was all about protecting the peculiar institution of slavery.
And why the Confederacy started Civil War is one of history's Big Questions, with "shear stupidity" being the likely best answer.
Once war began, the Union objective was to defeat the Confederate military power, and to do that, freeing slaves was an effective strategy.
So, bottom line: slavery was the first reason, then slavery was the final reason, though in-between first and last there were other reasons and tactics, but none of more importance than slavery.
And the answer has nothing to do with whether you approve or not? I don't see it as relevant at all. I don't consider the right conditional on anyone's reasons for leaving, it is sufficient that they wish to leave.
It was a fact of US constitutional law that the President had authority to free "contraband" slaves in the protection of the US Army, but not slaves in states which had not declared their secession.
That old constitutional thing didn't stop him when he didn't want it to stop him. He even admits he broke a few rules. " Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation."
No, he was just fine with breaking it if he felt it was necessary. What it wasn't was politically viable. Had he forced Union states to give up their slaves, he would have had a mutiny. No, he could only make that happen after it became clear that the Army would be freed up to deal with other reluctant states if they balked.
So why is it that you people think this is such a clever issue to raise? Surely the real facts are simple enough for anyone to grasp?
Apparently not, because here we are with people constantly bringing up Slavery while ignoring the fact that the Union did not start a war with the South to abolish slavery, they started a war with the South to abolish independence, and the reasons why they abolished slavery were manyfold, and not so much out of concern for what was best for the slaves.
Again, had the Union been all about the slaves, they could have attacked the five Union Slave states. The supply lines would have been shorter.
Oh, but FRiend, there was vastly less arm-twisting or duress than you imagine here for one simple reason: those state legislatures now included, for the first time elected black representatives.
I am aware that it did, because they refused to allow white people to vote. Leaving only black voters and electing a black legislature was a revenge tactic designed to humiliate and and punctuate forcible Union rule, but it eventually became such an embarrassment to the Union that they did away with the "whites not allowed to vote" restrictions rather quickly.
What is odd is that it is difficult to find any reference to this bit of history, as if this whole incident was scrubbed from the History books. Very few history books mention it anymore. Don't find much on the internet regarding it either.
But getting back to the point, by bringing this up, I take it that you are asserting that the 13th amendment was ratified in the Southern states by black legislatures?
Is this what you are asserting?