Correct. And the goal of the Confederate states was to preserve their institution of slavery in the face of the threat they saw from a Republican administration. Can we agree on that?
So both sides were in agreement on this issue?
In a manner of speaking.
So why do you keep bringing it up as justification for an Invasion by the North? If one side was just as bad as the other, why mislead people about it?
Because I don't think I've every brought up slavery as justification for "invading" the South. There was a war on. A war the Confederacy began. Having had a war forced upon them, the Union set out to win it. Any "invasion" was a result of that and needs no justification from me.
The part that was no different from the slave holding People of Massachusetts in 1776.
Perhaps. But slavery was not a reason why the colonies rebelled. The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to color so some could, and did, make the claim it should apply to blacks as well as whites. So to say that a cause so completely dedicated to the preservation of slavery was for to liberty and freedom is far more hypocritical than the Founding Fathers were.
If you can't recognize the right of slave holding Virginia to secede, you can't recognize the right of slave holding Massachusetts to secede either.
Massacusetts didn't secede, it rebelled. As did the other 12 colonies. They were not under any illusions that their actions were legal. How the Southern states could believe that their method of secession was legal is a mystery to me.
My point is the two secessions were exactly alike in terms of slavery.
I would disagree on at least two counts. Both were rebellions and not secession. And the Southern rebellion was a rebellion for slavery while the Founding Fathers rebellion was not.
I contend the people of Massachusetts did not lose their right to secede from the English Union simply because they condoned slavery.
What right to secede?
The goal of the Confederate states was to remove Washington D.C. from the decision making process. Same as it was for the Colonists breaking from England.
In a manner of speaking.
In fact. The both did and condoned this evil thing. I believe the White House was even built with assistance from Slave Labor.
There was a war on. A war the Confederacy began. Having had a war forced upon them, the Union set out to win it. Any "invasion" was a result of that and needs no justification from me.
If you are going to argue the war was started over hurt pride (no real injury) and motivated by revenge, then why don't you stick with that instead of constantly referring to the red herring that the Union fought to abolish slavery? That is at least a plausibly truthful account of what happened.
Perhaps. But slavery was not a reason why the colonies rebelled.
Only because it was condoned without dispute by England as well. Certainly had the English sought to forbid it in the Colonies, the War would very much have included that offense against them.
Even so, the British offered freedom for any slave that would fight against the Colonists. I doubt the Colonists would have appreciated the humor of this.
The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to color so some could, and did, make the claim it should apply to blacks as well as whites.
Not the authors, nor governors nor legislators of any ratifying state make this claim at this time. Sure, it later became the basis for asserting freedom for slaves, but it certainly was not so interpreted between 1776 and 1787.
So to say that a cause so completely dedicated to the preservation of slavery was for to liberty and freedom is far more hypocritical than the Founding Fathers were.
Slavery was just the most prominent dispute between the New England driven Union and the Southern states, but it most certainly was not the only one. Trade policy was strictly tailored to suit the needs of the Industrial North at the expense of the Agrarian South. They were constantly getting outvoted on virtually every issue in which the North favored one thing and the South Favored another.
The issue of Slavery and other concerns boiled down to the belief that the policies of the Union no longer appeared to serve the best interests of the South. Their solution was to govern themselves on the Issue of Slavery, and every other thing as well.
Massacusetts didn't secede, it rebelled. As did the other 12 colonies. They were not under any illusions that their actions were legal.
In terms of English law, but according to Natural law, what they did was perfectly legal.
How the Southern states could believe that their method of secession was legal is a mystery to me.
All the more perplexing because of how many times it has been explained.
American Colonies seceding from England was contrary to English Law. Of that there can be no doubt. But the Colonists did not cite English law, they cited "Natural Law" and stated unequivocally that "Natural Law" grants them the right to Independence.
Therefore, THIS NATION was founded on this natural law principle that a people have a right to independence, ergo this *IS* the law of this nation.
It becomes axiomatic that a nation which cites Natural Law as the source of Authority for it's right to Independence is therefore duty bound to abide by Natural Law when other people seek to exercise the same right.
As these people at this time believed that there was no Higher Law than God and Nature, Independence was therefore legal to seek, just as the Colonists did.