[CWRWinger]

Since both sides believed the same on this issue of slavery, which was legal, then this should be a non-issue in North-vs-South debate. Bringing up slavery because the North 'felt' this or that is an exercise in effeminate logic. It was the law, period. (In math, if an equation has similar and equal factors on both sides, that factor is eliminated and the problem is solved.) Since in both the North and the South slavery was legal, then we must move on to the real reasons for secession.

With that said, IMO, the South seceded over States Rights, a defining issue with basis in law.

BTW, what is your basis for slavery being wrong? Do you just 'feel' it's wrong?

[Non-Sequitur]

BTW, what is your basis for slavery being wrong? Do you just 'feel' it's wrong?

I feel it is wrong for one human being to own another as if they were just another piece of property. You don't see anything wrong with that?

However, I responded because of your charecterization of Lincoln as a 'white supremist' and assumed, rightly or wrongly, that you disapproved of him as a result. My question is that since Lincoln's views towards Blacks in general was certainly no worse than the views of the southern leaders I mentioned (and probably a bit better since those gentlemen didn't have a problem with slavery) then why aren't you labeling them 'white supremists' too?

[Non-Sequitur]

With that said, IMO, the South seceded over States Rights, a defining issue with basis in law.

Unfortunately a lot of the southern leadership of the time made it clear that slavery was an overriding reason for the rebellion.