The freedom to enslave their fellow man? That’s not a "right" worth preserving.The Founding Fathers compromised to get our new country off the ground. It's disingenuous to compare that with the CSA, which claimed slavery as its fundamental founding principle and expressly forbade its member states from curtailing the practice.
You wouldn't think so, but apparently the founders thought it was so necessary to preserve it that they wrote deliberate protections for it into the US Constitution.
The Civil War was about preserving the Union, as far has the United States was concerned.Another staggeringly facile comparison. The American Revolution was fought to increase liberty for people on this continent, whereas the CSA was expressly founded on the belief that some human beings didn't deserve to be free.
But why did they have a right to do that, but the British didn't?
On the issue of slavery. They wrote into the constitution a specific protection for the institution of slavery, and as you say, they did it because they needed the Southern States so that they could be strong enough to resist England's efforts to reacquire them.
But the bottom line is they did it. They compromised on the issue of slavery. They made a devil's bargain.
It's disingenuous to compare that with the CSA, which claimed slavery as its fundamental founding principle and expressly forbade its member states from curtailing the practice.
And the US Constitution expressly forbade other states from interfering with the practice as well. Like it or not, the deal they signed meant they had to protect slavery. All of them.
Another staggeringly facile comparison. The American Revolution was fought to increase liberty for people on this continent, whereas the CSA was expressly founded on the belief that some human beings didn't deserve to be free.
Don't lecture me on being facile when you ignore the fact that the Declaration of Independence asserted that the 13 slave holding states had a right to be independent whether they practiced slavery or not.
You are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room; That the nation was founded on the principle that slave owning states had a right to leave a larger Union government.
You don't want to contemplate this point, because you have absolutely no response for it, because there *IS* no valid rebuttal of this point. You also overlook the fact that Lincoln was going to let the South keep slavery, but he was not going to let it keep Independence. You are trying to argue his ex post facto justification as an ante bellum justification, and this is simply intellectually dishonest.
Lincoln had no intention of uprooting slavery when he started that war.
Look, I get it. Nobody wants to think that their grandfathers fought (and died) in the service of the most evil nation this continent has ever seen.
No, you don't get it. None of my ancestors were in this country until after 1900. None of my people took part in the war. They also didn't settle in a Southern State, and I myself am not from a Southern State.
What this means is that I am objective. That I don't have a dog in the fight, and therefore can clearly see things that biased people, such as yourself, cannot perceive.
The Declaration give absolute carte blanche to any states seeking independence. It does not make exceptions for states who's morality of which you disapprove. Said another way, their right to leave the union is not contingent upon your moral approval. That right is inherent, and is in fact the basis on which *THIS* nation was created. If that right is not legitimate, than this nation is not legitimate either.
You don't like comparisons to the American war of independence from Britain because such an objective analysis simply doesn't support your favorite conclusion; That a larger, more powerful government had the right to march massive armies into the lands of people asserting independence, and subjugate them.
No, I get it. It sounds much better to say that you were protecting people of which those Union states never really gave a sh*t about in the first place, but who could serve the purpose of justifying ex post facto, the horrible thing which was done.
And then there is the matter of those five Union slave states which continued to practice slavery until nearly the end of the war. Have you ever heard the concept of the mote in your brothers eye while you have a beam in your own?