Based on your righteous position, this country is illegitimate because the Founders fought for liberty while denying liberty to others and then protecting the institution of 'servitude' in the Constitution.
In other words, the Founders were hypocrites that did not deserve freedom.
The position to which I object can be defined as being in favor of freedom for all men while still enslaving some.
That includes the Founders. Right?
Feel free to turn me in. I’m perfectly willing to explain my position to the admin people. If you don’t like being implied to be a racist, I suggest you reconsider your ardent defense of those who chose war to entrench a master race ideology.
Your problem is that you have taken a major, and false, leap.
I've always defended secession, never slavery. You obviously don't have the intellectual agility to reconcile the difference and be able to debate the merits of secession in it's own right.
Or, you're simply trying to spin the debate so that you can have your 'racist' and flame him too. It's a trick your mentor, non-sequitur, is equally unable to master even though you have both had plenty of practice.
The difference between 1776 and 1860 is that the Founders made no attempt to promote slavery as a positive good or to encourage its spread. Quite the opposite. They all, AFAIK, wanted it to eventually die out and were convinced that it would.
In 1860 many southern leaders wanted to spread slavery across Latin America and eventually around the world, defending it as a positive good and the only true basis for a free society.
There is considerable evidence that prior to 1860 there was a loosely organized conspiracy in the South to force slavery on the free states, a perfectly logical extension of the Dred Scott ruling. It was only when the South's overreaching led to a backlash in the North and their loss of the election that they decided to secede.
And I agree that the Founders who were slaveowners were to some extent hypocrites. Most of them were well aware of this themselves, and it bothered them. They just didn't know how to escape the trap they were in. That's quite different from denying a trap exists, while simultaneously building a larger trap and planning to drag others into it.
I've always defended secession, never slavery. You obviously don't have the intellectual agility to reconcile the difference and be able to debate the merits of secession in it's own right.
Whatever.
I have no objection to arguments in favor of secession based on legalities, although I don't find them particularly convincing.
What I object to is the attempt to justify secession as being in the interests of "freedom."
IMHO that argument can ONLY be logically sustained by denying the full humanity of those you are enslaving. Numerous southern leaders, including the Chief Justice, agreed with me. Blacks weren't "really" men.
There are consequences to ideology. The USA is based on the ideology that "all men are created equal," however imperfectly applied that ideology may have been at times. Carried to its logical conclusions, we wind up roughly where we are today, at least from a legal standpoint.
The CSA was based on an emerging master race ideology. I think most of us have a pretty good idea where ideologies of this type quite inevitably lead a society.
IOW, my disagreement with you is not about secession as such, it's with your claim that secession was legitimately motivated by a desire for freedom. It was, of course, but it was mostly the desire for freedom to continue denying freedom to others.