Maybe it's because they are just quoting the men from 156 years ago that said it was about slavery?
I keep pointing out that the Southern States already had slavery, and they had had it for the "four score and seven years" that the nation had existed, and as you yourself have pointed out, it was almost impossible for slavery to be abolished through a constitutional amendment.
And yet 156 years ago the South thought it was necessary to rebel in order to protect it from perceived threats. Go figure.
To put it differently, what were they going to get by leaving the Union that they didn't already have?
Protect slavery to an extent that it wasn't protected under the U.S. Constitution. For example, ensuring that slavery could not be outlawed in any state. Also guaranteeing that slavery would expand to any territories that the Confederacy which was not a given in the U.S. with the Republicans plan to challenge the horrendous Scott decision.
And why would they have a right to "preserve" a Union that was created by breaking with a previous Union? One that lasted far longer than "four score and seven years."
It was in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.."
The accusation that they left the Union to keep something they already had is just nonsense. It is silly on the face of it.
Tell that to the Southern leaders of the time:
"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." - Lawrence Keitt
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
"A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost." [William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball, Nov. 20, 1860, James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. --Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession
SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Louisiana
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. -- Texas Declaration of the causes of secession
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
My reading of Article IV, section 2 causes me to believe that it could already not be outlawed in any state. The Supreme Court also verified this interpretation in the Dred Scot case.
The constitution is quite clear on the matter. It says no matter what the law is in any state, you are required to return servants back to the person for whom their labor is due according to the laws of any state.
If a slaveowner wants to settle in Massachusetts, how can you stop him from bringing his slaves which are held by the laws of the state he is from? How do you get around that constitutional stipulation that they must be returned to him?
It's an ugly deal for states that didn't want slavery, but the problem is, they signed onto that deal.
Also guaranteeing that slavery would expand to any territories that the Confederacy which was not a given in the U.S. with the Republicans plan to challenge the horrendous Scott decision.
The Scott decision was a factually accurate interpretation of the constitutional law from 1787. Liberals had been finessing the reality of that law, and it came as quite a shock to them when the Supreme Court stated what was plainly true of legislative intent when Article IV was written.
It was in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.."
I quoted Supreme Court Chief Justice (and Northerner) Salmon P. Chase earlier in the thread where he made it clear that the court would have ruled against Lincoln had he attempted to bring any of these charges against the leadership of the Confederacy.
Lincoln's own adage applies here. "Just because you call a tail a "leg", doesn't make it so." (Just because you call it "rebellion" doesn't make it so.)