[gandalftb]

Good point.

What seems to get lost in most of our posts is the point that the Constitution didn’t discuss slavery, because at the time it didn’t need to.

Doing so would have prevented ratification of the Constitution. It was more sensible to discuss and enshrine the concept of property rights. Slaves were not legally citizens, they were property.

When religiously driven abolitionists, like my family, chose their faith over the rule of law, the resistance and eventual fighting over slavery began.

Defining what is property, and how to treat property, is the real core of this debate. Every result issues from that core.

That core issue, though, only became real to many in the North when slaves and slave catchers came north.

That’s when many Northerners, abolitionists or not, realized that there would eventually be war between the states.

The only issues that remain is a sentimental sympathy for the property losses and destruction of the South, and a continuing strain of white supremacy in both the North and the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

The only issues that remain is a sentimental sympathy for the property losses and destruction of the South, and a continuing strain of white supremacy in both the North and the South.

I don't think those are the only issues remaining. I think this business of "consent of the governed" is an issue that was decided wrongly in the 1860s, and needs to be corrected.

I believe states should and do have the right to regain independence. This notion of a compulsory union is anathema to the principles of our own founding.

If California wants to leave, so long as they pay us what they owe us, i'm okay with them leaving. They are nuts anyways.

[BroJoeK]

gandalftb: "When religiously driven abolitionists, like my family, chose their faith over the rule of law, the resistance and eventual fighting over slavery began."

Total nonsense, what is this rubbish you keep posting?
You sound like a poser, pretending to be sympathetic to the Union but in fact making our Lost Causer arguments for them, including a key one here.
The reality is: no Northerner outside John Brown's immediate circle "chose faith over law" that's utter nonsense.
Northerners chose abolition in their own states, that was 100% legal and faithful.
Northern Republicans also chose to restrict slavery in US territories, just as their Founders did, so also 100% legal and faithful.

And no Northern leader in 1860 advocated overthrowing slavery in the South because they all understood it would mean secession, and none wanted that.
But Republican moderation didn't matter because their very limited opposition to slavery was still plenty enough to drive Southern Democrats crazy with anger and secession.
That's why, in 1856 Democrats threatened secession if Republican Fremont won the presidency -- he didn't, Doughfaced Democrat Buchanan won.
In 1860 Southern Democrats again threatened secession if Republican Lincoln won, but this time they took the trouble to split their own majority party, handing over victory to the minority Republicans.

So the real issue was never "law versus faith", but rather, then as now it was: why do Democrats go insane when they lose elections?