Then obviously the original intent of the Constitution is beyond your comprehension, as the Constitution doesn't 'enumerate the rights of the States', nor was it ever intended to.
I've shown you where even Lincoln acknowledged the right to own slaves.
----
and if you feel so strongly about defending slavery, why don't you and your little confeder-buddies attempt to repeal the Thirteenth amendment and return this country back to the days of slavery...
Good grief. 'Defending slavery' and pointing out that the people in the South had the LEGAL RIGHT to own slaves as per Lincoln and the Constitution are two totally separate issues.
I'm sorry you have so much trouble wrapping your tiny little mind around the differences between a MORAL issue and a LEGAL one, as they are not now, nor have they ever been the same.
Speaking of constitutional authority, can you show me where the Constitution gives the government the ability to tell the People what they may (or may not) own?
----
Could it be because you know it was as wrong then to enslave others as it is today
ROFLMAO!
Since you never bothered answering my repeatedly asked question, it's obvious you DON'T know what a 'Nation of laws, not of Men', means.
It means the Law is based on the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded, NOT on whatever moral concept of Men holds sway at the time.
----
and that only the worst sort of racist would champion such a cause?
Racist? Pointing out the facts of history is racist?
You don't even know which race I am. Does that means I'm racist if I'm white? What if I'm black, am I still racist?
I submit you are suffering from some form of self-imposed guilt about your Southern heritage, as you remark itself was racist.
----
Perhaps you should read more history. If you do, you will find Lincoln's brand of 'equality' not much different than their original enslavement.
For all his pomposity of basing his actions on 'all men are created equal', he was NOT willing to accept the slaves AS equals himself-
So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races.
Abraham Lincoln
But he was willing to destroy the original intent of the Republic for the sake of the 'union', and be the instrument of death to hundreds of thousands of Americans who had broken no laws.
Not exactly a place I'd call the moral high ground.
Are you condemning Lincoln for such a belief? If so can you point to a single southern leader, military or civilian, who believed otherwise? If you can't then they are to be condemned as well. Right?
The Southern states had control over their state laws, until they rebelled. That was why, in response to the Taney written "Dred Scott Decision", the Republicans sought to limit slavery to the states where it existed. Legally, by constitutional amendment.
Once the "fire-eaters" rebelled, they gave Lincoln the chance to intervene in what had been state affairs.
The southern fire eaters must have had an IQ of about 3. First, they ran not 2, but 3 Democrat candidates against Lincoln. Second, they didn't even try a legal effort, after they had won a great victory in Dred Scott vs...
Third, if Army officers owed their allegience to their home state, they shouldn't have permitted gypsy officers like Pemberton from PA, or Forrest from KY to serve until their home states had passed some kind of seccession ordinance.
Messed up on all counts. What a bunch of maroons.