[usmcobra]

Slavery would have went away on it's own, just like it did up north.

You do realize that it took an amendment to the Constitution before that happened, it didn't just fade away?

Or that had it remained legal eventually it would have required an amendment anyway to end slavery. The whole idea that Slavery would have ended on it's own any way, negates the very reasons for the democrat's rebellion against The United States, by your logic there was no reason to rebel in the first place.

Yeah I know "states rights", states rights to what? maintain slavery as an institution? Let me make this real simple for everyone that thinks this wasn't about slavery.

Show me one southern state in 1860 that wasrun by Republicans and seceded from the United States for the purposes of abolishing slavery as it existed in the Constitution, show me just one, that's all I ask and if you can, I'll admit defeat honorable.

[JamesP81]

Yeah I know "states rights", states rights to what? maintain slavery as an institution?

Actually it had as much or more to do with tariffs and unfair trade practices, but the revisionist historians won't tell you that.

[smug]

You do realize that it took an amendment to the Constitution before that happened, it didn't just fade away?

All thirteen of the original states had slavery at one time some before the revolution some after. It ended in more than half without and amendment.

The whole idea that Slavery would have ended on it's own any way, negates the very reasons for the democrat's rebellion against The United States.

They did not rebel. They parted company. The south did not know when or if slavery would end. If they really wanted to keep slavery indefinitely they could have just stayed in the Union and helped pass the Corwin Amendment.

Show me one southern state in 1860 that was run by Republicans and seceded from the United States for the purposes of abolishing slavery as it existed in the Constitution, show me just one, that's all I ask and if you can, I'll admit defeat honorable

I never claimed there was one. The new party "Republican" reason for being was to end slavery and centralize government. Therefore if the Republican party got control of the federal government they would soon be able to wrestle away state powers that the Constitution protected. And, in this case first and foremost it "was" slavery. As I am sure you know the Constitution grants the federal government certain powers and all others are those of the states. We all know that since the WBTS ended those limited powers that are the domain of the the federal government, have now became ever limitless powers.