No, I do not. Nor does any defender of Confederate heritage I know. The most I can and will say about slave ownership is that it was constitutional in 1860. Murder and rape were not. What I do say is that not every anti-slavery action is correct, nor are they all constitutional. And THAT, my friend, is the point. The southern States generally, and Virginia in particular, said to the abolitionists, you can be anti-slavery all you want, but when you let your anti-slavery passions convince you that you no longer need to comply with the provisions of the US constitution, then we will disagree (e.g. so-called personal liberty laws, refusal to extradite fugitives from justice, financial and moral support to those inciting servile insurrection, etc.). When your party takes control of the Federal government, and indicates that anti-slavery fervor will lead it to ignore and subvert all the provisions of the Constitution that abolitionists (and their neo-merchantilist allies) do not like, then we will part company. So they left.
They did not try to "destroy America" as you say. Abraham Lincoln was free to establish any "free-labor" neo-merchantilist paradise he wanted to. The South wanted only "to be left alone" (to quote Jefferson Davis).
Respectfully, D J White
But you don't have enough against it to the point that it would've been OK to continue in return for a CSA victory.
Nor does any defender of Confederate heritage I know.
There's a few here that say they would've made good slavemasters.
The most I can and will say about slave ownership is that it was constitutional in 1860.
Exactly. It was legal. That's what you guys always fall back on, legality. That wasn't good enough for the Radical Republicans, thank God. We're not the freaking Sudan.
Murder and rape were not.
Slavery made murder and rape commonplace.
What I do say is that not every anti-slavery action is correct, nor are they all constitutional.
But they had to be done to rid this country of that immoral practice.
And THAT, my friend, is the point. The southern States generally, and Virginia in particular, said to the abolitionists, you can be anti-slavery all you want, but when you let your anti-slavery passions convince you that you no longer need to comply with the provisions of the US constitution, then we will disagree (e.g. so-called personal liberty laws, refusal to extradite fugitives from justice, financial and moral support to those inciting servile insurrection, etc.).
A constitution that allows slavery isn't a Constitution worth living under.
When your party takes control of the Federal government, and indicates that anti-slavery fervor will lead it to ignore and subvert all the provisions of the Constitution that abolitionists (and their neo-merchantilist allies) do not like, then we will part company. So they left.
For slavery as stated in most if not all the Declarations of Secession.
They did not try to "destroy America" as you say.
What do you call "dissolving the union"?
Abraham Lincoln was free to establish any "free-labor" neo-merchantilist paradise he wanted to. The South wanted only "to be left alone" (to quote Jefferson Davis).
They didn't want to be left alone, they kept attacking Kansas and then even attacked Fort Sumter. If you want to be left alone, don't attack your neighbors.