[DWar]

The issue in 1860, slavery, was abhorrent. But the Constitutional principle, States Rights, was and is correct.

The people will always reject tyranny ... eventually.

Read these Declarations of Causes, omit the slavery issue and Federal tyranny is the same today as then.

[WAW]

I was just having this conversation last night. Thanks for the source references.

[VanDeKoik]

That’s why the secession option was wasted on the CSA. They totally came off as complete hypocrites.

Cant really preach about liberty when you are hell bent on making slavery a protected institution.

[Notary Sojac]

The Confederate states unquestionably had every right to secede.

Similarly, the slaves had every right to rebel against their owners. And had I been present during the era of slavery, I like to think I would have done everything I could to encourage a successful slave rebellion.

[Alberta's Child]

I've long said that the moral question of slavery as it pertains to the U.S. in the years leading up to the Civil War was really a red herring.

The Union was no more justified than the Confederacy when it came to those issues. The Union didn't have slaves back then because they simply didn't need them . . . they had massive numbers of immigrants (mostly from Ireland) who weren't treated much better than black slaves in the Confederate states and sure didn't have any more rights as U.S. citizens than their black counterparts.

The differences between them were largely socio-economic -- i.e., the Union "slaves" were generally better off than the Confederate slaves only because the overall standard of living was higher (something that was astutely noted by Frederick Douglass when he escaped to Massachusetts and realized that escaped slaves working as laborers there were actually better off than the owner of the plantation in Maryland where he had worked as a slave.

[carton253]

Before the usual suspects come and this thread deteriorates into a usual slugfest...

I want to tell everyone of a new e-zine. The Stainless Banner is an e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy. Includes biographies, regimental histories, battles, first hand account from the soldiers who fought, letters homes, diaries, etc.

Subscription is free.

To subscribe, please send an email to: thestainlessbanner@gmail.com.

[carton253]

Before the usual suspects come and this thread deteriorates into a usual slugfest...

I want to tell everyone of a new e-zine. The Stainless Banner is an e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy. Includes biographies, regimental histories, battles, first hand account from the soldiers who fought, letters homes, diaries, etc.

Subscription is free.

To subscribe, please send an email to: thestainlessbanner@gmail.com.

[Gaffer]

If only it had today’s date....if only......

[Badeye]

‘The issue in 1860, slavery, was abhorrent. But the Constitutional principle, States Rights, was and is correct. ‘

States Right to do ‘what’ exactly?

In the instance of the Confederate States of America, it was to keep the institution of slavery.

Trying ‘split the baby’ here, DWar.

Had the South left the Union, and in its own Constitution outlawed slavery, there more than likely wouldn’t have been a war, and if it was forced, it would have ended after Fredricksburg or Chancellorsville, maybe even right after Antietam, based on the horrific (to this day) number of casualties.

And today North America would resemble Europe.

No thanks. JMHO.

[conservative_crusader]

Let me venture this:

The reason slavery fails, and ought not be considered a constitutional right is that all people have a right of self-ownership. If I own myself, then no one else can own me. Furthermore, if my neighbor owns himself, no one can own him either.

[Professional Engineer]

Gnip

[dangus]

Nonsense. The South argued for the right to invade the North with paramilitary police forces whenever they wanted to so they could bring back the refugee slaves. And they wanted to make sure that all states added to the union were slavery states, regardless of the wishes of the residents of those states.

Abe had no intention of the South, and he made it clear. Conservative that he was, he expected that, confined to the South, slavery as an institution would destroy itself as freemen settled the Great West. However, that plan relied on slavery not spreading to the Great West.

[Walts Ice Pick]

Slavery was not really an important issue. The South was more concerned with their fear that the northern states would amend the constitution to allow the people to elect U.S. Senators. And, sure enough, the South was right and we later got the 17th Amendment.

[BroJoeK]

DWar: "Read these Declarations of Causes, omit the slavery issue and Federal tyranny is the same today as then."

There are a number of Big Lies central to our Lost Causers' efforts to rewrite history.

• The first is that it was not all about slavery, or that slavery can be somehow discounted as the core reason.
  
• The second is that Federal "usurpation" of power caused the South's secession.
  
• The third is that states have an unlimited Constitutional "right of secession."

In fact, the opposites are true.

• As your own document here clearly says, it was only about slavery, nothing else.
  
• And the South's real complaint, expressed in this document, was not that the Federal government imposed its will on the South -- just the opposite, their complaint was: the Federal government was not enforcing Fugitive Slaves laws in non-slave states and territories.
  In other words, the Federal government was refusing to exercise its power, not "usurping" too much power.
  
• As for a supposed Constitutional "right of secession," that is bogus to the max.
  The Constitutional method is a state's application to Congress and agreement with Congress's terms and conditions (i.e. National Debt, Federal properties, etc.)

Any other method is just asking for trouble.