Sure they were, but at a rate roughly 1/3rd of the rate being used by the north.
It says they have the right to do so in Art.1 Sec.8.
No. It says they have a POWER to do so, not a right. Governments exercise power. When that exercise of power becomes excessive it may be characterized as tyrannical and could thus be an impetus for a people asserting their right to their earned property of income against a government that perhaps they would have tolerated if it extracted that money with greater moderation.
Yea, maybe some of the Confederate States would have seen the evil of slavery and seceded over it!
Who knows, and if they did, more power to them. My point is not in any way related to defending slavery but rather to the logical and consistent application of the principle of self government.
And a Gov't that supports human bondage is alright with you?
Most governments employ human bondage of some form or another, the only difference being the degree. Normal taxation is one form of this. Severe taxation (i.e. property confiscation) is an extreme form of it that sometimes even surpasses legal bondage in severity, as was the case in Stalinist Russia. Thus I will say that a government supporting human bondage of any form is not alright with me, though among multiple governments all employing human bondage, lesser forms of it may exist.
And the South did not have representation in Congress to fight against this unfair taxation?
And if the taxes had to be increased, then the other southern states could have pulled out?
what rate does triggers this massive secession?
It says they have the right to do so in Art.1 Sec.8. No. It says they have a POWER to do so, not a right. Governments exercise power. When that exercise of power becomes excessive it may be characterized as tyrannical and could thus be an impetus for a people asserting their right to their earned property of income against a government that perhaps they would have tolerated if it extracted that money with greater moderation.
Yes, they have the power do so and the power comes from an implied right, since the States were joining the Confederation and agreeing to accept the use of that power by the central gov't.
Yea, maybe some of the Confederate States would have seen the evil of slavery and seceded over it! Who knows, and if they did, more power to them. My point is not in any way related to defending slavery but rather to the logical and consistent application of the principle of self government.
No, you are suggesting anarchy.
Why not towns seceding from States?
We have a gov't of ballots to prevent the recourse to bullets.
And a Gov't that supports human bondage is alright with you? Most governments employ human bondage of some form or another, the only difference being the degree. Normal taxation is one form of this. Severe taxation (i.e. property confiscation) is an extreme form of it that sometimes even surpasses legal bondage in severity, as was the case in Stalinist Russia. Thus I will say that a government supporting human bondage of any form is not alright with me, though among multiple governments all employing human bondage, lesser forms of it may exist.
My, what a rationalization!
Here a men and women, in chains and you are going to compare them to what other forms of 'bondage' in other gov't.
So do you feel as if you are a slave?
You have no right to travel?
No right to have a home, a weapon for self-defense, a family-all of which were denied to the slaves in the South.
You have no appreciation of freedom, you live in a fantasy world of the anarchist.