Accuracy is not at all your goal. The Objective of the North was to "Preserve the Union" not to abolish slavery.
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Neither were you.
So both sides were in agreement on this issue? So why do you keep bringing it up as justification for an Invasion by the North? If one side was just as bad as the other, why mislead people about it?
So your bleating about seceding in the name of freedom and independence was for only a part of the Southern population.
The part that was no different from the slave holding People of Massachusetts in 1776.
If you can't recognize the right of slave holding Virginia to secede, you can't recognize the right of slave holding Massachusetts to secede either.
My point is the two secessions were exactly alike in terms of slavery. The Secession of 1776 was conducted by a slave holding people, and so was the Secession of 1860.
I contend the people of Massachusetts did not lose their right to secede from the English Union simply because they condoned slavery.
Yes, the Slaves had a right to be free too, but so did those slaves in Massachusetts. Denying one people their rights does not justify denying other people their rights.
Correct. And the goal of the Confederate states was to preserve their institution of slavery in the face of the threat they saw from a Republican administration. Can we agree on that?
So both sides were in agreement on this issue?
In a manner of speaking.
So why do you keep bringing it up as justification for an Invasion by the North? If one side was just as bad as the other, why mislead people about it?
Because I don't think I've every brought up slavery as justification for "invading" the South. There was a war on. A war the Confederacy began. Having had a war forced upon them, the Union set out to win it. Any "invasion" was a result of that and needs no justification from me.
The part that was no different from the slave holding People of Massachusetts in 1776.
Perhaps. But slavery was not a reason why the colonies rebelled. The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to color so some could, and did, make the claim it should apply to blacks as well as whites. So to say that a cause so completely dedicated to the preservation of slavery was for to liberty and freedom is far more hypocritical than the Founding Fathers were.
If you can't recognize the right of slave holding Virginia to secede, you can't recognize the right of slave holding Massachusetts to secede either.
Massacusetts didn't secede, it rebelled. As did the other 12 colonies. They were not under any illusions that their actions were legal. How the Southern states could believe that their method of secession was legal is a mystery to me.
My point is the two secessions were exactly alike in terms of slavery.
I would disagree on at least two counts. Both were rebellions and not secession. And the Southern rebellion was a rebellion for slavery while the Founding Fathers rebellion was not.
I contend the people of Massachusetts did not lose their right to secede from the English Union simply because they condoned slavery.
What right to secede?