Slavery was not guaranteed labour as the slaves would often escape or be unproductive. It is a rather stupid way of trying to generate any out put as the labour force has virtually no incentive to work.
The figures on slave owning families is just another way you Leftists like to infer that slave ownership was rampant when in fact all you are doing is trying to INFLATE the figures by lumping in families who have no connection to the institution itself. This would be like accusing American "families" of electing Obama just because 1 or more member of an entire family might have voted for him. This is guilt by association. Furthermore: Lincoln was not elected in the South which is something you conveniently overlook because if the South remained in the Union they would have had government without representation.
No they were not.
Furthermore: Many states only joined the Union after receiving the guarantee that they could secede from it at any time. Lincoln violated this oath as well.
No state received such a guarantee. Three states included assumptions in their ratification documents, but such assumptions were meaningless if they violated the Constitution. All states after the original 13 didn't join anything. They were admitted, allowed to join only after a majority of the existing states gave their approval. If they are allowed in only with the approval of the other states then why should leaving not require the same?
Ergo: Unilateral secession is Constitutional.
Ergo: It was not.
...ergo when one or more states leave: it is illegal to FORCE them back at the point of a gun.
Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the secession was legal, when the South started a war to further their aims then they had to accept the consequences for their actions.
Slavery was not guaranteed labour as the slaves would often escape or be unproductive. It is a rather stupid way of trying to generate any out put as the labour force has virtually no incentive to work.
Apparently enough of the 4 million slaves stayed put and were productive enough to make the institution to pay off.
The figures on slave owning families is just another way you Leftists like to infer that slave ownership was rampant when in fact all you are doing is trying to INFLATE the figures by lumping in families who have no connection to the institution itself.
And failure to accept clear statistic is a Nazi hallmark.
Or Commie. One of the two.
This would be like accusing American "families" of electing Obama just because 1 or more member of an entire family might have voted for him.
No, more like when one person in a family owns a car the entire family draws benefit from it.
Furthermore: Lincoln was not elected in the South which is something you conveniently overlook because if the South remained in the Union they would have had government without representation.
Completely idiotic. Lincoln received a majority of the electoral votes, the South continued to have their Constitutional representation in the Senate and their Constitutional over-representation in the House.