No doubt completely against the will and the desires of the Southern people, as you have been trying to convince us.
The U.S. Constitution never outlawed expansion of slavery. The CSA one did. Just repeating an inaccuracy doesn't make it accurate.
No, it doesn't. Can you point me to the clause of the Confederate Constitution that you believe outlawed the expansion of slavery in the CSA?
Already have (ie VA protesting since the early 1700s...actually they were the first State in the WORLD to protest the institution when it was at it's peak, but you knew that).
Virginia wasn't protesting slavery, it was protesting slave imports. And I know what you claim, but one has to question your conclusion that alturism was the motivating factor. To begin with, Virginia was far from the first state to try and discourage slave imports. States like New York and Pennsylvania taxed the crap out of slave imports prior to the revolution. Virginia did ask the king to end slave imports, while at the same time doing nothing to hinder slave ownership or encourage manumission of slaves. On the contrary, until the late 1770's the Virginia legislature had to approve the manumission of a slave and in 1806 Virginia passed a law saying that any slave freed had 12 months in which to leave the state or else be sold back into slavery. So if it wasn't opposition to slavery as a whole which motivated Virginia's actions then what was it? In his book "A Slaveholders Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic" George van Cleve notes that support for the legislation came primarily from large slave-owners on the eastern shore. Their motivation was pure capitalism; with demand for slaves remaining constant then any reduction in supply would cause a corresponding in crease in price for the available slaves. So perhaps you and Durand are seeing compassion for slaves where none is due. Certainly the complete lack of any other legislation in Virginia limiting or hindering the ownership of slaves tends to discount any idea that there was widespread opposition to the institution itself.
As for the "moving around" theory you present for the CSA, the Dred Scott decision sorta nullifies that whole argument, no? Nice try though.
No it does not. Dred Scott removed barriers to the expansion of slavery, but the Lincoln administration was opposed to that and would have taken legislative and legal steps to overturn the flawed Scot decision. It was that fear that motivated the Southern secession.
Also, please add "hyperbole" to the list of words you don't understand how to use.
Examples of hyperbole are present in almost every one of your posts.